Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת עבודה זרה דף נ״ב, but we will start 19 lines from the bottom of דף נ״א עמוד ב׳ from the beginning of the משנה. And the משנה says, עבודת כוכבים שהיה לה גינה ומרחץ, that if there was an עבודה זרה that had to it a garden or a bathhouse, נהנין מהן שלא בטובה, you're allowed to have use of it, but as long as there is no טובה, no advantage given, which means there is no payment made, and the גמרא will explain soon no payment made to who. But that's what it says here, that as long as there is no payment given, then you're allowed to have הנאה from this garden and from this מרחץ. And even though the garden and the מרחץ belongs to the עבודה זרה, but there is no הקדש for עבודה זרה, there's no such thing that something belongs to עבודה זרה should be similar להבדיל, just like something is הקדש and belongs to the בית המקדש, you can't have any use from it, because it gets the קדושה on it, so the same thing we should say, that something that belongs to עבודה זרה should have a kind of הקדש in the opposite sense, that you shouldn't be able to have הנאה from it, that doesn't apply, as רש״י says, that the גמרא says earlier in דף מ״ד עמוד ב׳, there is no הקדש for עבודה זרה. So therefore, if there is no payment given for the use, you are allowed to have הנאה from it. But ואין נהנין מהן בטובה, but you're not allowed to have הנאה from it if there is an advantage, if there is payment made for the use. This is only if the גינה or the מרחץ belongs only to the עבודה זרה. היה שלה ושל אחרים, if it belongs to it and to others also, נהנין מהן בין בטובה ובין שלא בטובה, then you're allowed to have use from it, whether there is payment given or there is no payment, whether there is an advantage or there is no advantage through the use. In both cases, you're allowed to have use from it, and the גמרא will explain soon what that means. עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים אסורה מיד, the משנה continues saying that an עבודה זרה of a גוי is אסור right away, as soon as the גוי makes the עבודה זרה, it has a דין of עבודה זרה and it is אסור בהנאה. You don't have to wait for somebody to worship that עבודה זרה in order for it to become אסור. As soon as it's made, it is אסור. ושל ישראל, but if it's an עבודה זרה of a ייד, אינה אסורה עד שתעבד, it is not אסור until it is actually worshipped. The גמרא explains, אמר אביי, אביי said, בטובה, what does the משנה mean that you are not allowed to have הנאה from it בטובה? That means בטובת כומרים, the payment, the advantage to the priests of the עבודה זרה. So if you are going to pay, give some kind of an advantage to the priests of the עבודה זרה, then you are not allowed. שלא בטובה, when the משנה says, but you are allowed to have הנאה from it if it is without טובה, that means שלא בטובת כומרים, that if there is no advantage, no payment given to the כומרים, to the priests of the עבודה זרה. לאפוקי, this comes to exclude טובת עובדיה, the טובה, the advantage, the payment to the worshippers of the עבודה זרה, דשרי, that is מותר. That the only time you're not allowed is if there is an advantage to the כומרים, to the priests of the עבודה זרה. But if there will be an advantage, payment to the worshippers of the עבודה זרה, דשרי, that is מותר. So when the משנה says that you are not allowed to have use from it בטובה, it's only בטובה of the כומרים, but you are allowed to pay the worshippers for using the גינה or the מרחץ, and that is מותר. איכא דמתני לה אסיפא, some learned the words of אביי on the סיפא, on the second part of the משנה, not as we said before that אביי said his דין on the first part of the משנה, where it speaks about a גינה, a מרחץ that belongs to the עבודה זרה, and there's a difference whether בטובה, שלא בטובה, but they learned the words of אביי on the סיפא, where it says היה שלה ושל אחרים, that if the גינה and the מרחץ belongs to it, to the עבודה זרה, and to others, נהנין מהן בטובה ושלא בטובה, so then you're allowed to have use from it, whether it is with a טובה, with advantage, or without advantage, in both cases you're allowed. So on this, אמר אביי, אביי said, what does בטובה mean? בטובת אחרים, that when you say you are allowed to have הנאה from it even בטובה, that means if others will have a טובה from it, which means that the worshippers will gain by it. And it says also you're allowed to have הנאה שלא בטובה, that means שלא בטובת כומרים, as long as there is no benefit to the priests. But if there is benefit to the priests, then you're not allowed to have הנאה from it, even in the case where the גינה and the מרחץ belongs to the עבודה זרה together with somebody else. The גמרא explains, מאן דמתני אסיפא כל שכן ארישא. The one that learns these words of אביי on the סיפא, so certainly, the same would apply on the רישא. That if in the case where the גינה and the מרחץ belongs to the עבודה זרה and to somebody else, nevertheless, you are not allowed to have any use from it if there is a טובה to the priest, so certainly in the רישא where it belongs only to the עבודה זרה, certainly you're not allowed to have הנאה from it if there is a טובה to the priest. ומאן דמתני ארישא, but the one that learns the words of אביי on the רישא, so you could say, אבל אסיפא, but this opinion holds that concerning the סיפא, it's different. כיון דאיכא אחריני בהדה, since there are others involved here too, אפילו בטובת כומרים נמי שפיר דמי, even if there is a טובה to the priest, it's also allowed. According to the first פשט in the גמרא that אביי said his דין on the רישא, so only in the רישא where it only belongs to the עבודה זרה, that's where we say that if it's בטובה of the כומרים, you are not allowed to have any הנאה. But in the סיפא, since there is somebody else involved, it belongs to the עבודה זרה and to somebody else, so here maybe even if there is a טובה to the כומרים, you're also allowed. So when it says in the משנה that if it belongs to it and to others, you're allowed to have הנאה בטובה ושלא בטובה, so according to the first פשט, that means even בטובה of the כומרים, you're allowed to have הנאה as since this belongs not only to the עבודה זרה, but to others also. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, עבודת כוכבים של עובדי כוכבים אסורה מיד. עבודה זרה of a גוי is forbidden right away as soon as it's made. But the גמרא says, מתניתין מני? Who is the תנא that said this דין in the משנה? רבי עקיבא היא, it only goes according to רבי עקיבא. Because as the גמרא will explain, there's a מחלוקת between רבי עקיבא and רבי ישמעאל. According to רבי ישמעאל, the דין is that an עבודה זרה of a גוי is אסור only after it's worshipped, and the עבודה זרה of a ייד is אסור right away, just the opposite than it says in the משנה. רבי עקיבא is the one that holds as it says in the משנה, so the גמרא says that this משנה goes according to רבי עקיבא. דתניא, because we learned in a ברייתא, the ברייתא quotes the פסוק where it says, אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות אשר עבדו שם הגוים, that you should destroy all the places that the גוים worshipped their idols there. And he explains that this פסוק is speaking, בכלים שנשתמשו בהם לעבודת כוכבים הכתוב מדבר, that the פסוק is speaking concerning כלים, vessels, that were used for עבודה זרה. And the פסוק says that you have to destroy all the vessels. And the גמרא will explain soon how we can say that this פסוק is speaking about vessels when לפועל the פסוק says, כל המקומות, all the places, is משמע speaking about the land, the area, the place where the עבודה זרה was. But the גמרא will explain that. So from this פסוק we see that כלים that were used for עבודה זרה must be destroyed. But, יכול, I would think, עשאום ולא גמרום, if you just made the כלים, but you didn't finish them, or even גמרום ולא הביאום, even if they were finished, but they were not brought yet, or even הביאום, they were brought already, ולא נשתמשו בהן, but they still were not used for עבודה זרה. יכול, I would think, יהו אסורין, they also should be אסור, that one would say that כלים for עבודה זרה are אסור, it becomes אסור right away even if it wasn't used yet, תלמוד לומר, so the פסוק says, אשר עבדו שם הגוים. The פסוק says you should destroy all the places, which as we said before mean the vessels, that the גוים, the nations worshipped there. That teaches us, שאין אסורין עד שיעבדו, that they are not forbidden unless they are worshipped, which means that if the כלים were already used for עבודה זרה, that's when they are אסור, but if they were not used yet, they are not אסור. מכאן אמרו, so from here we also learned out, that עבודת כוכבים של עובדי כוכבים, an עבודה זרה of a גוי, אינה אסורה עד שתעבד, is not forbidden unless it was worshipped already, ושל ישראל, an עבודה זרה of a ייד, אסורה מיד, is forbidden right away. And the גמרא will explain that since we said before that this פסוק is speaking about the כלים, so how can we learn out from here that the same דין applies to the עבודה זרה itself? But the גמרא will explain that. דברי רבי ישמעאל, this is the opinion of רבי ישמעאל. רבי עקיבא אומר, רבי עקיבא says, חילוף הדברים, you think it's just the opposite, that עבודת כוכבים של עובדי כוכבים אסורה מיד, עבודה זרה of a גוי is forbidden right away, ושל ישראל, but an עבודה זרה of a ייד, עד שתעבד, is not forbidden till it is worshipped. This is the ברייתא. So from this ברייתא we see that the דין in our משנה that עבודה זרה of a גוי is forbidden right away and of a ייד is not forbidden till it's worshipped goes according to רבי עקיבא and not according to רבי ישמעאל. Now the גמרא will explain the ברייתא. אמר מר, it learned just before in the ברייתא, בכלים שנשתמשו בהם לעבודת כוכבים הכתוב מדבר, that this פסוק where it says, אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות אשר עבדו שם הגוים, is speaking concerning vessels that were used for עבודה זרה. But the גמרא asks, המקומות כתיב, how can you say it's talking about vessels when the פסוק says, מקומות, places? The גמרא answers, אם אינו ענין למקומו דלא מיתסר, since we cannot use this פסוק for the places, because the places themselves, the earth The land itself is not אסור. דכתיב, because there's another פסוק that says אלהיהם על ההרים, that you should destroy their gods on the mountains. So we דרשן, ולא ההרים אלהיהם, but not the mountains are their gods, which means if a גוי worships a mountain, since it's קרקע, it doesn't become אסור. So, since from that פסוק we see that the place, the land itself that is an עבודה זרה cannot be אסור, so the פסוק where it says you should destroy the places of the עבודה זרה cannot refer to the place itself, so תניהו ענין לכלים, so we use the פסוק for כלים. Because we have this rule that whenever we have a פסוק that cannot be used for whatever reason, for whatever the פסוק actually is saying, we use it for another case which is similar. So here too, since we can't use it for what the פסוק is saying, that we're talking about the places themselves, so we use the פסוק for כלים. And from this פסוק we see that you have to destroy the כלים that were used for עבודה זרה. Then the ברייתא continues, מכאן אמרו, from here they said, that עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים אינה אסורה עד שתעבד, עבודה זרה of a גוי is not אסור till it's worshipped, ושל ישראל מיד, but עבודה זרה of a ייד is אסור right away. So the גמרא asks, how can you say that? והא בכלים מוקמינן לה, how can you learn out from this פסוק that an עבודה זרה of a גוי is also not אסור till it's worshipped? Didn't we just say that the פסוק is speaking about כלים? How can we learn out from here concerning עבודה זרה itself? The גמרא answers, אמר קרא, the פסוק says, אשר אתם יורשים אותם, those that you inherit, את אלהיהם, their gods. סמכיה אלהיהם לכלים, since the פסוק says you ירש'ן, and it says their gods, and what do you ירש'ן, you ירש'ן כלים. So we compare the אלהיהם to what you ירש'ן, to the כלים, and we say, מה כלים עד דעבדי, just like by כלים we said before, it's not forbidden unless it was used, it actually was used for worship, אף אלהיהם נמי עד דעבדי. So too, their gods is not אסור till it's worshipped. And from here, רבי ישמעאל knows that עבודה זרה of a גוי is not אסור unless it's worshipped. But then the גמרא says, ולרבי עקיבא דלא מקיש, רבי עקיבא who does not compare, obviously he doesn't compare the two, because רבי עקיבא holds an עבודה זרה of a גוי is אסור right away. So he doesn't compare the עבודה זרה to the כלים. So what does he do with this פסוק where it says אשר אתם יורשים אותם את אלהיהם? אמר לך, he will tell you, את הפסיק הענין. The word 'את' blocks it. Since it says 'את אלהיהם', so usually the word 'את' interrupts. So the תורה is telling us specifically, do not compare אשר אתם יורשים אותם to אלהיהם, and therefore we cannot say that just like the כלים are not אסור unless it's used, so too the עבודה זרה. And רבי עקיבא therefore is able to hold that עבודה זרה is אסור right away. Then the גמרא says, ולרבי ישמעאל, according to רבי ישמעאל, אשכחן, we find עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים דאינה אסורה עד שתעבד, we already found a ראיה for where he knows that an עבודה זרה of a גוי is not אסור till it's worshipped, because we compare it to the כלים, so we say that just like the כלים are not אסור till it's used, so too עבודה זרה. But דישראל דאסורה מיד מנא ליה? How does he know the second half of his דין, that עבודה זרה of a ייד is אסור right away? Maybe the עבודה זרה of a ייד has the same דין? And the גמרא answers, סברא, it's a סברא, it's a logic. מידי דעובד כוכבים עד שתעבד, since by a גוי it is not אסור unless it's worshipped, דישראל אסורה מיד, so by a ייד it should be worse, so it's אסור right away. But the גמרא says, maybe it's just the opposite, אימא לך דאיפכא, let us say, דישראל כלל וכלל לא, maybe a ייד is not אסור at all! What makes you say that a ייד should be worse? Maybe by a ייד it's better? A גוי is אסור after it's worshipped, and a ייד is different, that what? That it's never אסור! But the גמרא says, הא פשיטא גניזה בעיא, איסורא לא מיבעיא. Since we know that you have to hide the עבודה זרה of a ייד, we learn it out later in the גמרא from the פסוק where it says ושם בסתר, that you have to put it away, you have to hide it, so what can you say that it's not אסור? If it wouldn't be אסור, why should you have to hide it? So obviously the עבודה זרה of a ייד is also אסור. So we cannot say that עבודה זרה of a ייד is never אסור, and that's how it's different than a גוי's. So therefore we must say that עבודה זרה of a ייד is different, that it becomes אסור right away. But the גמרא asks, how do you know, ואימא, let us say, כי עובד כוכבים, the same as a גוי! Who says it has to be different? Maybe that just like the עבודה זרה of a גוי is not אסור till it's worshipped, so too the עבודה זרה of a ייד is not אסור till it's worshipped? The גמרא answers, אמר קרא, the פסוק says, ואת חטאתכם אשר עשיתם את העגל, reminds them of the עבירה that they did, they made the עגל. So there the פסוק says אשר עשיתם את העגל, that you made the עגל. It doesn't say that you worshipped the עגל, it says your sin that you made the עגל. So from there we see, משעת עשיה קרי ליה חטא, that from the moment that they made it, you have an עבירה already, because the פסוק is חטאתכם אשר עשיתם את העגל. So we see that right away, as soon as you make it, right away it is אסור. So the גמרא says, no, how do you know that? אימא, let us say, הני מילי למיקם גברא בחטא. Maybe this פסוק only teaches us that the person has an עבירה. As soon as the person makes an עבודה זרה, he did an עבירה, but איסורא לא מיתסרא, but maybe it doesn't become אסור. We're not talking here about the עבירה of the person, we're talking about the object, whether the object has a דין of עבודה זרה that it's אסור בהנאה or not. So from this פסוק we only see that it's a חטא to make an עבודה זרה, so maybe טאקע the person has a חטא, but how do we know that the object becomes אסור? The גמרא answers, אמר קרא, there's another פסוק that says ארור האיש אשר יעשה פסל ומסכה, that cursed is the person that will make a פסל ומסכה, that will make an idol. So we see that משעת עשיה קאתי בארור, that from the moment he makes it, he has this curse already, because the פסוק says ארור האיש אשר יעשה פסל. It doesn't say ארור האיש, cursed is the person that will worship a פסל, that will make the פסל. So we see that from the moment he makes it, he is cursed. So the גמרא asks, אימא, let us say הני מילי למיקם גברא בארור, maybe this is just that the person has a curse from when he makes it. איסורא לא מיתסרא, but how do you know it becomes אסור? Maybe the object doesn't become אסור, the פסוק is speaking about the person, that the person is cursed for doing it, but how do we know that the object becomes אסור? The גמרא answers, תועבת ה' כתיב. In that same פסוק where it says ארור האיש אשר יעשה פסל ומסכה, the פסוק continues תועבת ה', it's a disgusting thing of ה'. So we see from there that not only is the person cursed, but the object is a disgusting object, which means that the object becomes אסור. And since the פסוק says אשר יעשה, from there we see that when an איד makes an עבודה זרה, from the moment he makes it it becomes תועבת ה', it becomes already an עבודה זרה. Then the גמרא asks, ורבי עקיבא, what would רבי עקיבא do with that? רבי עקיבא holds that if an איד makes an עבודה זרה it doesn't become אסור till it's worshipped, but doesn't the פסוק say here ארור האיש אשר יעשה פסל ומסכה תועבת ה', that from when you make it it becomes תועבת ה'? The גמרא answers that רבי עקיבא will learn the פשט is דבר המביא לידי תועבה, that the פסוק is telling you that when you make an עבודה זרה you're making something that will bring you to disgusting. The disgusting part is when you worship it, and the פסוק says cursed is the person who makes a פסל ומסכה that will bring him to do the disgusting thing, to worship. Then the גמרא continues, ורבי עקיבא, עבודת כוכבים של עובדי כוכבים דאסורה מיד מנא ליה? רבי עקיבא, how does he know his דין that an עבודה זרה of a גוי is אסור right away as soon as he makes it? אמר עולא, so עולא answered, אמר קרא, because the פסוק says פסילי אלהיהם תשרפון באש, the carved out idols of the גוים you should burn in fire. So from here we see משפסלו נעשה אלוה. It says פסילי אלהיהם, from when he carves it, from when he makes it, it becomes already a god, which means it becomes an עבודה זרה. From there we see that when a גוי makes an עבודה זרה, it becomes right away an עבודה זרה and is אסור. Then the גמרא says, ואידך, the other one, רבי ישמעאל, what does he do with this פסוק? Doesn't this פסוק teach us that as soon as he makes it, as soon as he carves it, it becomes a god, it becomes an idol, so how can רבי ישמעאל say that it doesn't become אסור till after it's worshipped? And he answers ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתני רב יוסף. He needs this פסוק for something else, for what רב יוסף said. דתני רב יוסף, because רב יוסף learned מניין לעובד כוכבים שפסלו לאלוהו, how do we know that a גוי can פוסל, can be מבטל, can nullify his own god, that if a גוי is מבטל an עבודה זרה it becomes בטל, it becomes מותר? שנאמר, he learns it out from this פסוק, פסילי אלהיהם תשרפון באש. The פסוק says פסילי אלהיהם, that he could their own god make פוסל, destroy it and make it בטל. ואידך, so the קשיא is, that רבי עקיבא who uses this פסוק to teach us that from soon as you make it it becomes אסור, so from where does he know that a גוי is able to be מבטל his עבודה זרה? The גמרא answers, נפקא ליה מדשמואל, he learns it out from what שמואל said. דשמואל רמי, שמואל asked a question: כתיב, in one פסוק it says לא תחמוד כסף וזהב עליהם, this is the end of that same פסוק, פסילי אלהיהם תשרפון באש, which is in פרשת עקב, קפיטל ז' פסוק כ"ה. So afterwards it says לא תחמוד כסף וזהב עליהם, you should not desire the silver and the gold that's on them, and the פסוק continues ולקחת לך, and you should take it to you. So he asks the question, the beginning of the פסוק says do not desire the silver and the gold on them, וכתיב, then later the פסוק says ולקחת לך, you could take it to you, which is משמע that you could take it, which means that it's not אסור. And the answer is הא כיצד, how is it possible? פסלו לאלוה, if he made it into a god, he carved it out to be a god, לא תחמוד, then you're not allowed to desire it, which means you're not allowed to

take it. פסלו מאלוה, if he carved it out from it being a god, which means he was מבטל it, then ולקחת לך, then you're allowed to take it. So from here we see that if a גוי was מבטל his עבודה זרה, an איד is allowed to take it. Then the גמרא says, ורבי עקיבא, according to רבי עקיבא, אשכחן we find עבודת כוכבים עבודת כוכבים דאסורה מיד. We got to see from this פסוק where it says פסילי אלהיהם that a גוי who makes an עבודה זרה, it's אסור right away. ישראל דעביד מנלן? But from where do we know that when a איד makes an עבודה זרה, it's not אסור until it is worshipped? אמר רב יהודה, רב יהודה said, אמר קרא, the פסוק says: ושם בסתר. The פסוק we quoted before where it says that ארור האיש אשר יעשה פסל ומסכה, that cursed is the person that will make a carved-out image, an עבודה זרה, and the פסוק continues ושם בסתר, and he will put it in a hiding place. So from here we learn out עד שיעשה לה דברים שבסתר, that it's not an עבודה זרה until he does with it things that are done in hiding, because it's self-understood that when a איד will worship עבודה זרה, he would only do it in hiding, he wouldn't do it in public, because he knows he will be punished for it. So therefore he does it in hiding. So the

פסוק says ושם בסתר, he will put it in hiding, that teaches us that when does it become a פסל ומסכה, when is it אסור? Only after he does to it the things that are done in hiding, which means he worships it. ואידך? The question is on רבי ישמעאל, what does he do with this פסוק? Doesn't this פסוק indicate that it's not an עבודה זרה till he does to it the things in hiding, which is the worship? So he says, ההוא מבעי ליה לכדרבי יצחק. That פסוק is needed for what רבי יצחק said. דאמר רבי יצחק, because רבי יצחק said: מניין לעבודת כוכבים של ישראל שטעונה גניזה? How do we know that an עבודה זרה of a איד has to be hidden? שנאמר, because the פסוק says: ושם בסתר, that you should put it in hiding. So he uses this פסוק to teach us the other דין, that you must hide the עבודה זרה of a איד, you must bury it in the ground. ואידך? So the קושיא is on רבי עקיבא, where does he know this דין that an עבודה זרה of a איד has to be hidden? And the גמרא answers: נפקא ליה מדרב חסדא אמר רב. He learns it out from what רב חסדא said in the name of רב. דאמר רב חסדא אמר רב, because רב חסדא said in the name of רב: מניין לעבודת כוכבים של ישראל שטעונה גניזה, from where do we know that an עבודה זרה of a איד has to be hidden? שנאמר, because the פסוק says: לא תטע לך אשרה כל עץ אצל מזבח, that you should not plant an אשרה, which is a tree that is worshipped, any tree next to the מזבח. So the פסוק compares the אשרה, which is an עבודה זרה, to מזבח, to teach us מה מזבח טעון גניזה, just like a מזבח if it can't be used, then you have to hide it, אף אשרה טעונה גניזה, so too the אשרה, the עבודה זרה, also has to be hidden. Just like a מזבח, you can't do anything with it if it can't be used in the מזבח, you can't do anything else because it's אסור בהנאה, so the only thing you could do with it is hide it, so too the אשרה, the עבודה זרה, also has to be hidden. ואידך? What does the other one, who learned out this דין that you have to hide the עבודה זרה of a איד from the פסוק ושם בסתר, what does he do with this פסוק לא תטע לך אשרה כל עץ אצל מזבח? So he says, ההוא מבעי ליה לכדרבי שמעון בן לקיש. He needs it for what ריש לקיש said. דאמר ריש לקיש, ריש לקיש said: כל המעמיד דיין שאינו הגון, anybody who appoints a judge that is not fit to his job, כאילו נוטע אשרה בישראל, it's as if he planted an אשרה, an עבודה זרה among אידן. שנאמר, because the פסוק says: שופטים ושוטרים תתן לך בכל שעריך. Judges and police you should appoint, you should put in all your gates, in all your cities. וסמיך ליה, and next to it it says: לא תטע לך אשרה כל עץ, that you should not plant any אשרה, any עבודה זרה, any tree. And since the פסוק compares the two, so this teaches us that it's possible that when you appoint a judge, it should be similar to planting an אשרה. What is that? If you appoint a judge that is not fit. אמר רב אשי, רב אשי said: ובמקום תלמידי חכמים, if this is done in a place of תלמידי חכמים, כאילו נטעו אצל מזבח, so then it's not only that he planted an אשרה, an עבודה זרה, but it is as if he planted that אשרה next to the מזבח. שנאמר, because the פסוק continues: אצל מזבח, next to the מזבח. And the מזבח refers to תלמידי חכמים. Just like the אשרה we said before refers to the people, the judges, so too the word מזבח refers to people who are in that category, that means תלמידי חכמים. So he uses this פסוק, it teaches this דין: that if somebody appoints a judge that is not proper, so then it's as if he planted an אשרה, and in the place of תלמידי חכמים, it is as if he planted an אשרה next to the מזבח. But תוספות just ask a question: when we want to learn out that an עבודה זרה of a איד has to be hidden, which means it has to be destroyed and there's no use that you can have from it, why do we have to learn it out from the comparison to the מזבח as we said before, or learn it out from ושם בסתר? Why can't we learn it out from the עגל? What did משה רבינו do with the עגל? He ground it, and he got rid of it, he destroyed it. So from there itself we see that you must destroy an עבודה זרה of a איד. And תוספות says that there we can't learn out because there are different reasons given by רבי יוסי and the חכמים why משה רבינו did it. According to רבי יוסי, maybe it was because of the כבוד of the אידן, since this caused the אידן to have a תקלה, to have a problem, that's why he destroyed it. And according to the רבנן, the reason he ground it was because he took the powder, mixed it with water, and gave the people to drink, because he wanted to be בודק them like a סוטה. So ממילא, that could be a special דין. So we can't learn out from there that you must destroy the עבודה זרה of a איד. That's why we have to have the פסוקים here. Then the גמרא continues, בעי רב המנונא, רב המנונא asked a question: השוכר כלי לעבודת כוכבים מהו? מהו, if he fixed a כלי for עבודה זרה, what is the דין? It was a כלי that was broken, and he took a hammer and banged on it and banged on it, and it flattened it out, that all the holes were filled up, and it became a good כלי again, and he did this for the sake of עבודה זרה, what is the דין? Does it become אסור right away or not? The גמרא explains: עבודת כוכבים דמאן? עבודה זרה of who? אילימא עבודת כוכבים דעובד כוכבים, if you're going to be talking about an עבודה זרה of a גוי, so then בין לרבי ישמעאל ובין לרבי עקיבא, משמשי עבודת כוכבים נינהו. Whether it is according to רבי ישמעאל or according to רבי עקיבא, since this is only משמשי עבודת כוכבים, this is only a כלי that is used for עבודה זרה, this is not an עבודה זרה itself, ומשמשי עבודת כוכבים אינן אסורין עד שיעבדו. And משמשים, things that serve the עבודה זרה, are not אסור until they're worshipped, and this is according to both. The מחלוקת we had before between רבי ישמעאל and רבי עקיבא is only concerning the עבודה זרה itself, but concerning the כלים, everyone agrees that it's not אסור till it's used. As the גמרא said before, that we learn out from the פסוק where it says אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות אשר עבדו שם הגוים, that this פסוק is speaking about the כלים. And there, there was no מחלוקת. The only מחלוקת was whether we compare the עבודה זרה to the כלים. And according to רבי ישמעאל, he דרש'נט the פסוק אשר אתם יורשים אותם את אלהיהם, that we compare אלהיהם to יורשים, which is כלים, and רבי עקיבא said we don't compare because את, the word את is מפסיק. But according to both, the כלים are not אסור until they're used. So what kind of question is it here whether when you fix the כלי for עבודה זרה if it's אסור? It's definitely not אסור until it's used for the עבודה זרה. ואלא עבודת כוכבים דישראל. So we must be talking here about כלים that were fixed for the sake of an עבודה זרה of a ייד. Now, אליבא דמאן? And the question is: according to who? אילימא אליבא דרבי עקיבא, if you're going to say that your question is according to רבי עקיבא, so then there's a simple answer: השתא היא גופא לא מיתסר עד דתעבד, now, if an עבודה זרה itself of a ייד according to רבי עקיבא is not אסור till it's worshipped, משמשיה מיבעיא? So you have a

question concerning the כלים for it? The כלים certainly are not אסור until it's used. And therefore, what kind of question are you asking, whether when you fix a כלי for עבודה זרה of a ייד, if it's אסור right away? It's certainly not worse than the עבודה זרה itself, so certainly it's not אסור right away. ואלא therefore you must say אליבא דרבי ישמעאל, the question is according to רבי ישמעאל, דאמר he says אסורה מיד. עבודה זרה of a ייד is אסור right away. So the question is: מאי? What is the דין concerning if you fix a כלי for the עבודה זרה of a ייד, what is the דין? Do we say משמשים ממשמשים גמרינן? That we learn out the דין of משמשים, the דין of כלים of עבודה זרה from a ייד from the דין of כלים by the דין of עבודה זרה by a גוי, and we say מה התם, just like by the דין of כלים of an עבודה זרה of a גוי the דין is עד שיעבדו, that it's not אסור till it is worshipped, like we learn out from the פסוק of אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות, אף הכא so here too, the כלים of an עבודה זרה of a ייד is also not אסור עד שיעבדו, because we have one general דין of כלים, and we learn out the דין of כלים by the עבודה זרה of a ייד from the דין of כלים by the עבודה זרה of a גוי? או דלמא or maybe מינה גמר, we learn out the דין of כלים from the דין of עבודה זרה, and we say מה היא אסורה מיד, just like the עבודה זרה itself of a ייד is אסור right away, אף משמשיה אסורין מיד, so too its כלים, the כלים for the עבודה זרה of a ייד are also אסור right away. And that is the שאלה, according to רבי ישמעאל, a כלי that was fixed to the עבודה זרה of a ייד, is it אסור right away or not? Then the גמרא asks: מאי איריא דקא מבעיא ליה הטיח כלי, why did you only ask the question when he fixed a כלי? תיבעי ליה עשה, why didn't he ask the same question if he made a כלי? Why did he pick the example if he fixed a broken כלי for עבודה זרה, if it's אסור right away or not? The same question would be, if a person makes a כלי for an עבודה זרה of a ייד, is it אסור right away or not? The גמרא says: רב המנונא משום טומאה ישנה קא מבעיא ליה. רב המנונא asks this question because of the דין of an old טומאה. דתנן, because we learned in a משנה: כלי מתכות פשוטיהן ומקבליהן טמאין. Vessels made of metal, whether it is flat or it is a כלי which could receive something and has walls around it and could receive, whether it is a flat כלי מתכות or it is a מתכות with a קבלה, in both cases it's טמא, because certain כלים are not טמא unless they have a קבלה. By מתכות, like metal כלים, even if they're flat, it also is able to be מקבל טומאה. נשתברו, if it was טמא then it broke, טהרו, then it becomes טהור again. חזר ועשאן כלים, if again you fixed the כלי and you made it into a כלי again, חזרו לטומאתן ישנה, it goes back to its old טומאה. That's the דין by a regular טומאה, if a כלי became טמא and then you broke it and it becomes טהור just because it was broken, then you fixed it again and it automatically gets back its old טומאה. The דין is an עבודה זרה מדרבנן is also טמא. Not only the עבודה זרה itself, but the כלים that are used for עבודה זרה are also טמא. הכא קמיבעיא ליה, this is his question: כי הדרא טומאה, this דין that we say over there in the משנה, that when you fix the כלי it goes back to the טומאה, הני מילי טומאה דאורייתא, is this only said concerning a טומאה דאורייתא, by a real דין of טומאה? That if it was טמא and it was broken and became טהור, and then you fixed it, since it's a טומאה דאורייתא, it goes back to the טומאה. אבל טומאה דרבנן לא, but concerning a טומאה which is only מדרבנן, maybe we don't say that? And therefore, by עבודה זרה, or the כלים which are used for עבודה זרה, which is only a טומאה מדרבנן, maybe we don't say that. In other words, his case here is, is a כלי that was used for עבודה זרה. So this כלי became טמא. Then the כלי was broken, so it became טהור again. The question is, when you fixed the כלי and you made it for עבודה זרה again, does it get back the original טומאה of עבודה זרה before you even used it? And the reason for the question is because by a טומאה דאורייתא we definitely say it. The question is, is this only said by a טומאה דאורייתא, but not by a טומאה דרבנן, או דילמא or maybe לא שנא, there is no difference, even by a טומאה דרבנן we also say the same thing? And then the גמרא asks, ותיבעי ליה שאר טומאות דרבנן, let him ask the question by other טומאות דרבנן. Why did he pick the case of a טומאה of עבודה זרה? There are other טומאות דרבנן also. For instance, the דין is מדאורייתא that משקין, liquid which is טמא cannot make a כלי טמא, but מדרבנן the טמאה'דיקע liquid could make a כלי טמא. And the reason for that is because there are certain liquids which can make טמא, the liquid of a זב and a זבה, the spit or the urine, etc., from a זב or a זבה, they are an אב הטומאה. They would make כלים טמא. That's why the חכמים made a גזירה that all other liquids which are טמא should also be מטמא כלים. So לכאורה the same question could be asked there. If liquid made a כלי טמא, which is only a טומאה דרבנן, and then the כלי broke and then you fixed it, does it become טמא again or not? Why did he pick his question דוקא concerning a טומאה דרבנן of עבודה זרה? And the גמרא answers, חדא מגו חדא קמיבעיא ליה. His question was really one out of one, which means really his question was by other טומאות also. The reason he picked his question concerning עבודה זרה, this was like a second question that came as a result of the first question. טומאה דרבנן מי הדרא או לא הדרא? His original question is, by a טומאה דרבנן do we say that if you fixed it, that it comes back or doesn't it come back? And it continues, ואם תמצי לומר לא הדרא, even if you're going to say that the answer is that it doesn't come back, טומאה דעבודה זרה, but my question is to remain concerning the טומאה of עבודה זרה, משום חומרא דעבודה זרה, because of the חומרא of עבודה זרה, מי שוויוה רבנן כטומאה דאורייתא או לא? Did the חכמים make it like a טומאה דאורייתא or not? In other words, his question is not only a general question concerning טומאה דרבנן, that's also included, but his question goes a step further, that it's possible that even if by a regular טומאה דרבנן this doesn't happen, it doesn't go back, but could be by a טומאה דרבנן of עבודה זרה it could be like a טומאה דאורייתא, since עבודה זרה is very strict. So that's his question: Did the חכמים say that the טומאה דרבנן of עבודה זרה has the same דין of a טומאה דאורייתא or not? The גמרא says, תיקו, there is no answer to this question. Then the גמרא continues, בעי מיניה ר' יוחנן מר' ינאי, ר' יוחנן asked a question of ר' ינאי: תקרובת עבודת כוכבים של אוכלין מהו? A קרבן, an offering, that was brought to the עבודה זרה, of food, what is the דין? מי מהניא להו ביטול לטהרינהו מטומאה או לא? When a גוי is מבטל that קרבן of עבודה זרה, that קרבן that was brought of the food to the עבודה זרה, does it become טהור of its טומאה or not? Because we know the דין is a גוי is able to be מבטל an עבודה זרה. And when he is מבטל the עבודה זרה, not only is it not אסור anymore, but it's not טמא anymore. The question is, if he's מבטל food that was brought for a קרבן to the עבודה זרה, does it become טהור automatically or not? And then the גמרא asks, ותיבעי ליה כלים, why doesn't he ask the same question concerning כלים? That כלים that were used for עבודה זרה, if when you are מבטל it does it become טהור automatically or not? Why did he pick his question דוקא concerning food? And the גמרא answers, כלים לא קמיבעיא ליה, concerning כלים he didn't have a question. כיון דאית להו טהרה במקוה, since by כלים there's a דין of טהרה במקוה, if a כלי becomes טמא, a regular טומאה, there is a way to make it טהור. You take it to the מקוה, it becomes טהור. טומאה נמי בטלה, so therefore it's self-understood that when the גוי is מבטל this כלי from being a כלי to עבודה זרה, so then the איסור goes away, so automatically the טומאה also goes away. Because the fact that טומאה is able to go away from a כלי is an accepted fact, because there are other ways you could take טומאה away from a כלי by a regular טומאה, through מקוה. So here too, when he is מבטל the כלי, not only does the איסור go away, but the טומאה also goes away. היכא מבעיא ליה, where was this question? אוכלין, only concerning food. Why? Because food we know normally when it becomes טמא cannot become טהור ever. But the question is, when you're מבטל the food from being a קרבן to עבודה זרה, do we say that the טומאה also goes away, even though generally speaking there's no such thing as טהרה for food? But then the גמרא asks, ותיבעי ליה עבודת כוכבים גופיה? Why did he ask the question concerning food that was a קרבן to עבודה זרה? Why can't he ask the same question concerning food which is עבודה זרה itself? For instance, if someone bowed down to a piece of bread, so that piece of bread becomes an עבודה זרה itself. So why didn't he ask the same question: if a גוי is מבטל that עבודה זרה, that food, does it become טהור automatically or not? Since normally food cannot become טהור, his question would be whether in this case it would become טהור. And the גמרא answers, עבודת כוכבים גופיה, of עבודה זרה itself, לא מיבעיא ליה, he has no question, because כיוון דאיסורא בטיל טומאה נמי בטלה. Because since, when the גוי is מבטל עבודה זרה the איסור goes away, so certainly the טומאה also goes away, because if it's not an עבודה זרה anymore, there is no reason for it to be טמא. So he had no question. היכא מבעיא ליה, where was his question? תקרובת עבודת כוכבים של אוכלין מאי? If it's a קרבן of food for עבודה זרה, there he had his question. Why? Because כיוון דאיסורא לא בטיל כדרב גידל, since the איסור doesn't become בטל of this קרבן like רב גידל said, we learned in the beginning of the פרק, that רב גידל learns out from a פסוק that the תורה compares a קרבן to עבודה זרה to a מת. And we say just like a מת, a dead body, can never become טהור, so too, the קרבן of עבודה זרה, אין לו ביטול עולמית, can never become בטל. This דין that a גוי is able to מבטל עבודה זרה and it's not אסור anymore only applies to the עבודה זרה itself, but not to the קרבן of עבודה זרה, as רב גידל learns it out from that פסוק. So since concerning food which was a קרבן to עבודה זרה the איסור doesn't become בטל, so maybe טומאה נמי לא בטלה, also when a גוי is מבטל it, just like the איסור doesn't go away the טומאה doesn't go away either. או דילמא, or maybe, איסורא דאורייתא לא בטיל, טאקע the איסור דאורייתא is not בטל, the ענין of it being a קרבן to עבודה זרה is not בטל, טומאה דרבנן בטלה, but the טומאה that's there because it's a קרבן to עבודה זרה, which is only a טומאה דרבנן, maybe that does become בטל. And that's why he had this question, that if a person is מקריב a food for עבודה זרה and a גוי is מבטל it, does it become טהור or not? And the גמרא says, תיקו, there is no answer to this question, this remains unresolved. לכאורה, one might ask a question: Why is it that in this case of the עבודה זרה itself, the גמרא says the reason there was no question was because כיוון דאיסורא בטיל טומאה נמי בטלה? Because he was so sure, since a גוי is able to מבטל the עבודה זרה itself, so certainly the טומאה for sure goes away. Why didn't the גמרא use the same logic in the case before concerning כלים? The גמרא asked before, why didn't he ask the same question concerning כלים? And the גמרא said, כלים there was no question, because since כלים have טהרה במקוה, so therefore the טומאה is also בטל. Why didn't the גמרא say the same thing? Since you're able to מבטל the כלים, when the גוי is מבטל the כלים that were used for עבודה זרה, it becomes בטל and the איסור goes away, since the איסור goes away, certainly the טומאה goes away. But the גמרא didn't give that reason. The גמרא said a different reason: because since כלים have a טהרה במקוה, the טומאה is also בטל. לכאורה, why didn't the גמרא give the same reason as the גמרא gives here? And therefore תוספות says, we must say that the כלים we are talking about before are כלים that were used as a קרבן to עבודה זרה. פשטות said before that when the גמרא says, why doesn't he ask the question concerning כלים, the גמרא meant כלים that were used for עבודה זרה. And the דין is that כלים that were used for עבודה זרה a גוי could be מבטל. So according to that, the גמרא טאקע could have said that the reason he didn't ask a question there, because since the איסור definitely goes away, so the טומאה also goes away. But תוספות says the גמרא didn't mean that. The גמרא meant כלים that were used as a קרבן to עבודה זרה. And as we say that by a קרבן you cannot be מבטל it, so therefore the גמרא couldn't say that just like the איסור goes away the טומאה goes away, because concerning those כלים the איסור טאקע doesn't go away. So the only reason the גמרא could give was that since כלים have טהרה במקוה, so therefore the גמרא was sure that the טומאה goes away. That only could be said concerning כלים, since כלים have a טהרה במקוה. But food which is a קרבן to עבודה זרה, so on one hand the איסור doesn't go away, and also there is no טהרה במקוה, that's where he had this question, and the גמרא remained with the תיקו. Then the

גמרא continues, בעא מיניה רב יוסף משול מרבי, רב יוסף משול asked the question of רבי: כלים ששימשו בהן בבית חוניו, מהו שישתמשו בהן בבית המקדש? כלים that were used in the house of חוניו or חוניא, whatever way it's pronounced, what is the דין, can you use the same כלים in the בית המקדש? And the גמרא says, וכי תימא תיבעי ליה אליבא דמאן דאמר בית חוניו לאו בית עבודת כוכבים היא. This question is according to the מאן דאמר that holds that בית חוניו was not a house of עבודה זרה. We find in the גמרא in the last פרק פרק of מנחות, it says there that שמעון הצדיק had a son called חוניא. He ran away because of an argument he had with his brother. He ran away to מצרים and he built himself there a so to speak בית המקדש and a מזבח. And there's a מחלוקת there what he meant with his מזבח. When they brought קרבנות on that מזבח, one opinion says he meant it for עבודה זרה, and the other opinion says he meant it לשם שמים, which means that he meant it to השם. It was nevertheless forbidden because you're not allowed to bring a קרבן to השם anywhere but in the בית המקדש, in ירושלים on the הר הבית. But still it wasn't for עבודה זרה, but he meant it for השם. So he was עובר on the איסור of שחוטי חוץ, of שחטing a קרבן outside of the בית המקדש, but this was not עבודה זרה. But the question here is, כלים that were used in בית חוניו, in this house of חוניו, can you use them in the בית המקדש? And the גמרא explains that the question is according to the מאן דאמר that holds that בית חוניו is not a house of עבודה זרה, because according to the one that holds that it is עבודה זרה, there is no question. Because the כלים that were used there, not only cannot be used in the בית המקדש, they can't even be used for a regular person, because they are כלים that נשתמשו לעבודה זרה, it's אסור בהנאה, as we learned before from the פסוק, אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות, and we said that that פסוק is speaking about כלים, that after the כלים are used already, it is אסור בהנאה. So there would be no question. The whole question is according to the one that holds that בית חוניו is not a house for עבודה זרה. And the

basis of the question is, תנן, because we learned a משנה in מנחות, כהנים ששימשו בבית חוניו, כהנים that did the עבודה in this בית חוניו, לא ישמשו במקדש שבירושלים, are not allowed to do the עבודה in the בית המקדש in ירושלים. ואין צריך לומר לדבר אחר. Certainly if this happened to דבר אחר, which means to עבודה זרה, that certainly if כהנים did the עבודה to עבודה זרה are not allowed to do the עבודה in the בית המקדש. So we see here that this משנה goes according to the opinion that בית חוניו was not a house of עבודה זרה. Because it says clearly כהנים who did עבודה in בית חוניו cannot do it in the בית המקדש, and certainly if they did it to עבודה זרה. So obviously בית חוניו was not for עבודה זרה. And the reason why if a כהן did the עבודה to the עבודה זרה he's not allowed to do the עבודה in the בית המקדש is because it says in יחזקאל, יען אשר ישרתו אותם לפני גלוליהם, that since you served for their עבודה זרה, and later the פסוק says, לא יגשו אלי לכהן לי, they should not get close to do the עבודה to Me. So that is the reason why a כהן who did עבודה for עבודה זרה is אסור to do the עבודה in the בית המקדש. The

reason why כהנים who did עבודה in בית חוניו are not allowed to do the עבודה in the בית המקדש is because of a קנס. The חכמים made a קנס, a fine, that since they did the עבודה there where you're not allowed, even though it's not עבודה זרה, but still you're not allowed, they should not do the עבודה in the בית המקדש. But the question here is, כהנים הוא דקנסינהו רבנן, only כהנים the חכמים fined משום דבני דעה נינהו, because they have their own שכל, their own logic, their own intellect, and they chose to do the עבודה in בית חוניו, the חכמים קנסed them that they should not be able to do the עבודה in the בית המקדש. אבל כלים לא, but כלים that were used to do the עבודה in בית חוניו, and כלים don't have their own intellect, so it's not their fault, so there is no קנס, and therefore you can use those כלים in the בית המקדש, או דילמא, or maybe לא שנא, there is no difference and you cannot use them either. אמר ליה, so he said to him, אסורין הן, it is forbidden. ומקרא היה בידינו, we had a פסוק in our hand, ושכחנו, we forgot it. In other words, he said, I know the דין is that it's אסור, and I know that we had a ראיה from a פסוק to it, and I forgot what the פסוק is. Now the ראיה from the פסוק was not concerning בית חוניו. The ראיה from the פסוק was that concerning עבודה זרה, even in a case where מדאורייתא it was מותר, and it was dealing with כלים, nevertheless the רבנן קנסed it. So from there, we compare it to בית חוניו also, that בית חוניו also, מדאורייתא it doesn't become אסור, and we're talking about כלים, so there nevertheless the כלים would be אסור to be used in the בית המקדש. But he said he forgot which פסוק it was. The גמרא continues, איתיביה, so רב יוסף asked רבי a question that's a פסוק, it says in דברי הימים. It is in דברי הימים ב, קפיטל כ"ט פסוק י"ט, it says, את כל הכלים אשר הזניח המלך אחז במלכותו, that all the כלים, all the vessels which king אחז in his reign did cast away, במעלו, when he trespassed, when he did the עבירה in עבודה זרה, so the כהנים were saying that all the כלים that he used for עבודה זרה, the כלים of the בית המקדש, so הכנו והקדשנו, we prepared and we made holy. מאי לאו, don't you think, הכנו, what do we mean we prepared it, דאטבלינהו, we טובלed it. Since they were טמא, either because they were used for עבודה זרה, we טובלed it. הקדשנו, we made them holy, means דאקדשינהו, we made it holy again. We smeared it again, we anointed it again with the שמן המשחה, and ממילא it became holy again. Now according to Even by עבודה זרה it could be used again. And the reason is, since מדאורייתא this case, these כלים did not become אסור, even though they were used for עבודה זרה. Why? Because these כלים, since they belong to the בית המקדש, they were הקדש. Now the דין is אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, a person cannot make something which is not his אסור. And therefore, these כלים, since they belong to the בית המקדש, so אחז could not have made them אסור because they're not his. And we see that the רבנן did not make them אסור either, because they used them again. So he asked him the question: How can you say that כלים that were used in בית חוניו cannot be used in the בית המקדש? And the reason is because the חכמים made the איסור. But here we see that in a case where מדאורייתא it's not אסור, and after all we're dealing with כלים which have no דעת, the חכמים did not make it אסור either. So the same thing should apply to בית חוניו, that since מדאורייתא it's not אסור, because it's not עבודה זרה, and they are כלים that have no דעת, they should not be אסור מדרבנן. אמר ליה, so he said to him, ברוך אתה לשמים, you are blessed לשמים, שהחזרת לי אבידתי, that you returned my loss to me. In other words, I told you that there was a פסוק to support my view, and I forgot it. Through your question, you brought me back the פסוק that is a ראיה to what I'm saying. Because the פשט in the פסוק that you said where it says that these כלים that were used for עבודה זרה, היכנו והקדשנו, and you טייטשט that it means we prepared it because we טובל'd it, and we were מקדיש it because we anointed it again, that's not the פשט. היכנו means we prepared it שגנזום, we hid them, they hid them. And והקדשנו means שהקדשנו אחרים תחתיהם. We made them holy means that we made others holy instead of them. פארקערט, this פסוק comes to tell us that they were not allowed... Just like over there they were not allowed to use them. Why? Even though מדאורייתא it didn't become אסור because אחז had was not able to make it אסור because it's not his, nevertheless the רבנן made a גזירה and said that it should be אסור. The same thing in בית חוניו, even though מדאורייתא it's not אסור, the רבנן made it אסור and therefore you cannot use the כלים that were used in בית חוניו to the בית המקדש. Then the גמרא says, לימא מסייע ליה, maybe there's a ראיה to this opinion, because we learned in מסכת מדות, where it speaks about the עזרת נשים. The first part of the עזרה in the בית המקדש, which was called the עזרת נשים, and it says there that there were four compartments at the four corners of the עזרת נשים, and there it explains exactly what each compartment was used for. And it says, מזרחית צפונית, the compartment on the north east, what was that used for? בו גנזו בית חשמונאי את אבני המזבח ששקצום אנשי יון. This is the compartment where the חשמונאים stored away, hid the stones of the מזבח which the Greeks made into disgusting, which means they used it for things that they were not allowed. So they were not able to use those stones for the מזבח, so they had to hide them someplace, so they hid them in the compartment on the מזרחית צפונית. ואמר רב ששת, and רב ששת said, ששקצום לעבודת כוכבים, that they used it, they made it disgusting because they used it for עבודה זרה. So we see clearly that even though these stones were not אסור, because these are stones that belong to the בית המקדש, and as we said before, אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, a person cannot אסר something which is not his. So therefore, in essence these stones did not become אסור through the עבודה זרה, and nevertheless they had to hide them. So we see that the רבנן made a גזירה even in such cases that מדאורייתא it is not אסור. So the same thing concerning בית חוניו, even though it's not a house of עבודה זרה, so therefore מדאורייתא it shouldn't be אסור, nevertheless the רבנן made a גזירה and they said that it should not be used. אמר רב פפא, so רב פפא said, no, we can't bring a ראיה from there, because התם קרא אשכח ודרוש. There, concerning that, they found a פסוק and they דרש'd the פסוק, and through דרש'ing the פסוק, it comes out that the stones did become אסור מדאורייתא. You see, because the פסוק says, ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה, that robbers shall enter into it and profane it, and make and be מחלל it. This פסוק teaches us that when גוים enter into the בית המקדש, so then the stones of the מזבח become חול, and since it's חול, it doesn't belong to the בית המקדש anymore, it's הפקר. Now when they pick it up, they are קונה מן ההפקר, so it becomes theirs, and since it becomes theirs, it becomes אסור. The whole reason we said before that מדאורייתא it's not אסור, that it can't become עבודה זרה, because it belongs to הקדש, so אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, the גוים cannot make it אסור because it's not theirs. But since the פסוק teaches us that by them coming into the בית המקדש they were מחלל it, it is not הקדש anymore, it's חול, and since it's not הקדש, it doesn't belong to the בית המקדש, so who does it belong to? To nobody, so it's הפקר. So they picked it up, so it becomes theirs because they were קונה, they acquired it from הפקר, and since it became theirs, they were able to use it for עבודה זרה and make it אסור. So since it became אסור, that's why we had to hide it. So from here we have no ראיה that when מדאורייתא it is not אסור, that the רבנן also said that you have to hide it and you can't use it. And the גמרא continues that אמרי, the חשמונאים, they said, when they saw what happened to these stones at the בית המקדש, they said, היכי נעביד, what should we do? נתברינהו, should we break these stones? In other words, the stones that were originally the מזבח. And now it became עבודה זרה. Should we use it again by asking a גוי to break it? So ממילא the גוי would be מבטל it, so it wouldn't be עבודה זרה anymore, so we could again use it for the מזבח. We can't, because אבנים שלמות אמר רחמנא. The תורה says you should use complete stones. If you're going to break the stones, so it won't be smooth anymore. They will have פגימות, they will have little places where it's not smooth, and the תורה says you have to have smooth stones for the מזבח. So then, if we break it, we can't use it for the מזבח anyway. ננסרינהו, should we file it down? Maybe we should have a גוי break it, be מבטל it, and it has a פגימה, we will file it down, and then it'll be smooth again and we could use it again. לא תניף עליהם ברזל אמר רחמנא. The תורה says you should not pick up a metal on it, so we can't smooth it down with metal. And therefore, there was nothing else they could do with this, and they had to hide it. But then the גמרא asks, ואמאי, but why did they have to hide it? ליתברינהו, let them break, let them break it through a גוי. And the question is if it still cannot be used for the מזבח anyway because it has to be without a פגימה and you can't file it down, ולישקלינהו לנפשייהו, and take it for themselves, because it's not עבודה זרה anymore, and it's חולין, so they could take it for themselves. So why did they have to hide it? מי לא אמר רב אושעיא, didn't רב אושעיא say, ביקשו לגנוז כל כסף וזהב שבעולם משום כספא ודהבא דירושלים, that they wanted to make all the gold and silver of the world אסור because of the gold and silver of ירושלים. The gold and silver of ירושלים, most of it was הקדש. So they were afraid any gold and silver that a person had anywhere, maybe it is from ירושלים, and maybe it's הקדש, so therefore the חכמים wanted to make everything אסור. But before the גמרא finishes off what the גמרא wanted to bring out, the גמרא continues and says, ואבינא בה, we thought about it, ירושלים הויא רובא דעלמא, is ירושלים the majority of the world? How can we make all the gold and silver of the world אסור because of the gold and silver of ירושלים? אלא אמר אביי, so therefore אביי said, ביקשו לגנוז דינרי הדריאנה טוריינה שיפא מפני כיסא דירושלים, that they wanted to hide the coins that have the picture of הדריאנה טוריינה, these were kings of Rome, and they made the pictures on the coins. And שיפא means old, that they wanted to hide old coins that had these pictures, and since it's old you can't tell exactly what it is, so they wanted to make all similar coins אסור because maybe this is the coin, the money they used in ירושלים. And since the money in ירושלים was used a lot for הקדש, so therefore, all similar coins they wanted to make אסור. עד שמצאו להם מקרא מן התורה, until they found a פסוק from the תורה, שהוא מותר, that it's מותר. What's the פסוק? ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה, that robbers entered and they made it חול. And that teaches us that when the robbers entered, it became חול. And therefore, all these coins of ירושלים, even though originally they were הקדש, but since they were taken away by the גוים, they became חול. And now that they became חול, ממילא people are allowed to keep it. That's why they didn't אסר all such coins in the world, because it's not forbidden. But if here we see that even though originally it was הקדש, but since the גוים took it, it's not הקדש anymore, it's חול and it's able to be used by any person, so too the stones that were used in the מזבח, even though originally they were part of the מזבח, but after the גוים came in and it became חול, so why can't it be used by simple people later on? So even though they couldn't use it for the מזבח because it couldn't be broken and then it couldn't be filed down, but why couldn't it be used by other people? And the גמרא answers, התם לא אישתמשו בהו לגבוה. Over there in the case of the coins, it wasn't used for השם, and therefore, even though it was הקדש, but when the גוים were מחלל it, it could be used by ordinary people. But הכא in the case of the מזבח, כיון דאישתמש בהו לגבוה, since it was used for השם, לאו אורח ארעא, it's not דרך ארץ, it's not proper, דלישתמשו בהו הדיוטא, that a simple person should use it. And therefore the חשמונאים had no other עצה but to hide these stones. Concerning what the גמרא just said, that they wanted to make these coins אסור, and רש״י explained that these coins were coins that had a picture of הדריאנה טוריינה on it, so the רבינו תם in תוספות asks a קשיא. It says in the גמרא בבא קמא דף צ״ז עמוד ב׳: איזהו מטבע של ירושלים, what was the coin of ירושלים? דוד ושלמה מצד אחד, on one side was דוד ושלמה, וירושלים עיר הקודש מצד אחר, and ירושלים was on the other side. So how can we say here that the coins of ירושלים had the picture of הדריאנה טוריינה? And תוספות answers that certainly אדריאנוס and טוריינוס, when they reigned on the יידן, they changed the coins. They took away the original coins, and they put their name on the new coins. And after the חורבן, that's when they wanted to hide these coins, because these coins were the ones that were used at their time in ירושלים. So it comes out that originally the coin had the picture or the name of דוד ושלמה. and later on it had the name of אנדריינוס and טוריינוס. The רבינו תם says that when it says here הדריוני טורייני doesn't mean like רש״י says names, but הדריוני means round, brings a ראיה from the לשון הדורא דקנתא. טורייני means big, and he brings a ראיה for that too. And שחופין means that it was rubbed out and you can't tell the words because he says that it wasn't a picture of דוד and שלמה that were on the coin, were names of דוד and שלמה. A picture is not allowed to be on a coin, as it says earlier נ״ג ע״א that צורת אדם אסורה, so therefore all you had was words. When it's rubbed out, you can't read the words. So when it says here that the coins were הדריוני טורייני it means round and big coins that if was rubbed out they wanted to make all the coins in the world אסור that similar to this because you can't read the words and maybe these are the coins of ירושלים. So it's not a coin with a picture or the name of הדריוני טורייני kings that reigned over ירושלים, but they were kings from רומי, but it's fact actually the coin that had the name of דוד and שלמה on it, and הדריוני טורייני doesn't mean the names of the kings of רומי, but it means round and big. Concerning what the גמרא said before, when they asked the question whether the כלים that were made for עבודה זרה and later it was broken and then it was fixed again, does it go back to its old טומאה or not? And the גמרא said why doesn't he ask the קשיא by regular טומאות דרבנן and the גמרא answered that he does have that קשיא in mind, he just meant to say that even if you're going to tell me by regular טומאות דרבנן it doesn't become טמא, maybe by טומאה דעבודה זרה does become. So what do we mean כלים that became טמא a טומאה דרבנן? So רש״י said as we said before, that for instance כלים that became טמא with liquid and that is only a טומאה דרבנן. But תוספות says we must say that we're talking about כלים that בעצם are able to become טמא a טומאה דאורייתא, because if we would be talking about כלים that essentially could never become טמא with a טומאה דאורייתא we wouldn't have a question because the גמרא says בפירוש in מסכת שבת that אין חוזרין לטומאה ישנה, that they never go back to a טומאה ישנה, so what kind of question would he have here when we have a מפורשת גמרא that it doesn't go back? But the פשט is that the גמרא over there is talking about a כלי that never could become טמא דאורייתא, it's כלי זכוכית for instance, glass כלים, that even when it will touch a שרץ or touch a מת מגבן will not become טמא מדאורייתא. So there we say it doesn't go back to טומאה ישנה. But a כלי that could become טמא a

טומאה דאורייתא, but in the case where it became טמא a טומאה דרבנן, the question would be if it's broken and it becomes טהור, and then you fix it, does it become טמא again, or doesn't it become טמא again and it remains טהור?