Jewish audio on Chabad.org. We'll be in מסכת עבודה זרה דף נ״ג, but we will start 12 lines from the bottom of דף נ״ב עמוד ב׳ from the beginning of the משנה. And the משנה says: עובד כוכבים מבטל עבודת כוכבים שלו ושל חבירו. A גוי is able to be מבטל his own עבודה זרה and the עבודה זרה of his friend, which means of another גוי. As the משנה will say later on in the next משנה, that if a גוי does certain things to an עבודה זרה, this is the form of ביטול of the עבודה זרה. And then that עבודה זרה is not an עבודה זרה anymore. This is the way he annuls עבודה זרה. So the משנה here says that a גוי is able to annul his own עבודה זרה and the עבודה זרה of another גוי. וישראל אין מבטל עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים. But a ייד cannot be מבטל the עבודה זרה of a גוי. Concerning the עבודה זרה of a ייד, his own עבודה זרה or of another ייד, he certainly cannot be מבטל. Because as we learned earlier, the פסוק says concerning the עבודה זרה of a ייד: ושם בסתר, that you must hide it. There is no way an עבודה זרה of a ייד can be annulled. But the משנה is saying here that not even the עבודה זרה of a גוי can the ייד be מבטל. Because only a גוי is able to be מבטל עבודה זרה, as we learned out from the פסוק earlier in the גמרא where it says: פסילי אלהיהם תשרפון באש, and from here we learn out that a גוי is able to be פוסל, to פסל, to annul, to destroy an עבודה זרה, so we know that a גוי is able to destroy an עבודה זרה, but a ייד cannot do it. Now even a גוי cannot destroy the עבודה זרה of a ייד as we said before, because the פסוק says ושם בסתר. But he can destroy, can be מבטל the עבודה זרה of a גוי. But a ייד cannot be מבטל the עבודה זרה of a ייד, and not even the עבודה זרה of a גוי. Then the משנה continues: המבטל עבודת כוכבים, when a גוי is מבטל עבודה זרה, מבטל משמשיה, automatically the משמשים, the things which are used for that עבודה זרה are בטל automatically. Because since they are only used for the עבודה זרה, if the עבודה זרה itself is בטל, so certainly the other things are בטל. ביטל משמשיה, but if the גוי was מבטל the משמשים, the things which are used for the עבודה זרה, משמשיה מותרין, so the משמשים, these things that are used for the עבודה זרה are allowed, because they are בטל. והיא אסורה, but the עבודה זרה itself remains אסור. Because by being מבטל the משמשים doesn't mean that the עבודה זרה is automatically בטל. But if you're מבטל the עבודה זרה, then automatically the משמשים, which are טפל, which are secondary to the עבודה זרה, they automatically become בטל. And the גמרא says: מתני לה רבי לרבי שמעון ברבי, or the other גירסא לרבי שמעון בריה, רבי taught to his son רבי שמעון, and he said: עובד כוכבים מבטל עבודת כוכבים שלו ושל חבירו, that a גוי is allowed to be מבטל his own עבודה זרה or the עבודה זרה of another גוי.

אמר ליה, so his son said to him, רבי, שנית לנו בילדותך, when you were young you taught us: עובד כוכבים מבטל עבודת כוכבים שלו ושל ישראל, that a גוי is able to be מבטל his own עבודה זרה and the עבודה זרה of a ייד. Now you're telling us that a גוי is only able to be מבטל his own עבודה זרה and of another גוי, which seems to be saying that he cannot be מבטל the עבודה זרה of a ייד. But when you were younger you taught us that he could be מבטל the עבודה זרה of a ייד also. And before the גמרא gets to answer the question and explain the difference in his opinion when he was young and later what he said when he was older, the גמרא just stops and asks: How can you say that when he was young he said that a גוי is able to be מבטל the עבודה זרה of a ייד? דישראל מי קא מבטלה, of a ייד can he be מבטל? והא ושם בסתר כתיב, doesn't it say in the תורה that an עבודה זרה of a ייד you must hide, which means there is no way that it could become מותר? So how can he have said that a גוי is able to be מבטל the עבודה זרה of a ייד? אמר רב הלל בריה דרב ולס, so רב הלל the son of רב ולס said: לא נצרכא, you don't even have to tell us that what did he mean? שיש לו בה שותפות, that the גוי and the ייד had a שותפות. Doesn't mean that it was an עבודה זרה of a ייד, it was really an עבודה זרה of a גוי, but a ייד had a partnership in that עבודה זרה. And that's what he meant when he said, when he was young, that a גוי is able to be מבטל the עבודה זרה of a ייד, he meant if the ייד is a partner in the עבודה זרה. But when he was older, he said that a גוי could be מבטל only the עבודה זרה of a גוי, but if a ייד has a partnership in it, then a גוי cannot be מבטל it. And the גמרא asks: בילדותו מאי קסבר ובזקנותו מאי קסבר, in his youth what did he hold, and in his older age what did he hold? In other words, what was his reasoning what he said when he was young, that a גוי could be מבטל the עבודה זרה if there is a partnership in it between a ייד and a גוי, but later when he was older he said that a גוי could only be מבטל the עבודה זרה of a גוי, but not if a ייד has a partnership in it. The גמרא explains:

בילדותיה סבר, when he was young he held, ישראל אדעתא דעובדי כוכבים פלח, that when the ייד worships this עבודה זרה, he owns this עבודה זרה and worships it, he only worships it on the mind of the גוי. It is because of the גוי what he worships. And therefore כיון דעובד כוכבים מבטל דנפשיה, since a גוי has a right to be מבטל his share, his חלק in the עבודה זרה, דישראל נמי מבטל. So automatically he could be מבטל the one of the ייד also. Because the ייד's connection to the עבודה זרה is only through the גוי, he does it אדעתא of the גוי. So when the גוי is מבטל his own חלק, so automatically the חלק of the ייד is also בטל because the ייד's connection is only through the גוי. And therefore he said that a גוי could be מבטל the עבודה זרה where there's a partnership of a ייד and a גוי. ובזקנותיה סבר, but later when he was older he held, ישראל אדעתא דנפשיה פלח, that when a ייד does worships the עבודה זרה he does it on his own. And therefore כי מבטל עובד כוכבים דנפשיה, so when a גוי is able to be מבטל, it's only his own part. דישראל לא בטיל, the חלק of the ייד he cannot be מבטל, and therefore he said that if a ייד has a partnership in the עבודה זרה, a גוי cannot be מבטל that עבודה זרה because of the חלק of the ייד. Then the גמרא says: איכא דמתני לה אסיפא. Some learn the words of רב הילל בריה דרב וולס on the סיפא of the משנה. Before we mentioned the words of רב הילל בריה דרב וולס as an explanation in what רבי meant when he said in his young age that a גוי is able to be מבטל the עבודה זרה of a ייד. That it meant the time when a ייד has a חלק in it, a שותפות in it. But now we're saying that some said that רב הילל בריה דרב וולס said his statement not on that, but on the סיפא of our משנה. It said in the משנה: ישראל אינו מבטל עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים, that a ייד is not able to be מבטל the עבודה זרה of a גוי. And the question that was asked was: פשיטא, isn't that simple? We know for sure that a ייד cannot be מבטל עבודה זרה because the פסוק that tells us that עבודה זרה can become בטל is only speaking about a גוי, פסילי אלהיהם. But concerning a ייד, we don't find anywhere a ייד has a right to be מבטל עבודה זרה. So it's simple, why does the משנה have to tell us that? And on that אמר רב הילל בריה דרב וולס, רב הילל the son of רב וולס said: לא נצרכא, it doesn't even have to tell us, that the case that he's trying to teach us is שיש לו בה שותפות, the case is that the ייד has שותפות in this עבודה זרה. Now באמת, even this the משנה wouldn't have to tell us, that a ייד is not able to be מבטל the עבודה זרה of the גוי when he has שותפות in it, because this is also simple. Because how can we expect that he should be able to be מבטל the חלק of the גוי if he can't even be מבטל his own חלק? Since the עבודה זרה of a ייד cannot be בטל, so this ייד cannot be מבטל his own חלק, so certainly he cannot be מבטל the חלק of the גוי. So even that the משנה wouldn't have to tell us. But what did the משנה mean to tell us? When the משנה said a ייד cannot be מבטל the עבודה זרה of a גוי, and we said it means that the ייד has a שותפות in it, קא משמע לן, it comes to teach us that ישראל הוא דלא מבטל דעובד כוכבים, that only a ייד cannot be מבטל the חלק of the גוי. In the case even where he has a שותפות in it, he cannot be מבטל that עבודה זרה, not his חלק and not even the חלק of the גוי. But that teaches us that only a ייד cannot do it. אבל עובד כוכבים, but a גוי, דנפשיה מבטל, his own חלק is fit to be מבטל. That if there's a partnership between a ייד and a גוי in עבודה זרה, the גוי is able to be מבטל his חלק. And we do not say that since he cannot be מבטל the חלק of the ייד, so his own חלק is not בטל, so we don't say that, but we say that he is able to be מבטל his חלק. איכא דמתני לה אברייתא. Some say that רב הילל בריה דרב וולס had his statement on a ברייתא. We learned in a ברייתא, רבן שמעון בן מנסיא אומר, רבן שמעון בן מנסיא said: עבודת כוכבים של ישראל אין לה בטלה עולמית, that an עבודה זרה of a ייד can never be בטל. מאי עולמית? And we ask, what do we mean never? What does this word add? It should have said it cannot be בטל, אין לה בטלה. What does the word עולמית come to add? אמר רב הילל בריה דרב וולס, so רב הילל the son of רב וולס said: לא נצרכא, it don't even have to tell us, אלא שיש לו לעובד כוכבים בה שותפות, that the case is where the גוי has a partnership in this עבודה זרה of the ייד. And that's what he says, עבודה זרה of a ייד could never become בטל, עולמית, that comes to teach us, קא משמע לן, דישראל אדעתא דנפשיה פלח, that the ייד when he does עבודה זרה, he worships it, it's on his own. We shouldn't say as we said before, that the ייד when he worships עבודה זרה, it's אדעתא דעובד כוכבים, it's on the mind of the גוי, and therefore, since the גוי is able to be מבטל his חלק, automatically the חלק of the ייד is בטל also, we don't say that. We say that the ייד worships on his own. So even though the גוי is able to be מבטל his חלק, but the חלק of the ייד can never become בטל. And that's what רבן שמעון בן מנסיא meant in the משנה, in the ברייתא where he said that עבודה זרה of a ייד could never become בטל, it means as long as he has a חלק in it, that can never become בטל, even though the גוי also has a חלק in it, because we don't say that the ייד does it אדעתא of the גוי, but we say the ייד does it on his own דעת. Then the משנה says: כיצד כיצד מבטלה, how does the גוי annul the עבודה זרה? It says קטע ראש אזנו, he cuts off the tip of its ear, ראש חוטמו, the tip of its nose, ראש אצבעו, the tip of its finger, או פחסה, he defaced it, אף על פי שלא חיסרה, even though there was no reduction in the mass of the material, the material itself wasn't taken away, there was nothing cut off, but if he defaced it, ביטלה, he was מבטל. Then the משנה continues, רקק בפניה, if he spit in front of it, הישתין בפניה, he urinated in front of it, או גוררה, he dragged it in the dust, או שזרק בה את צואה, or he threw צואה at it, waste of a body, and he threw it at עבודה זרה, הרי זו אינה בטילה, this is not מבטל it, because we say he just does it at the moment, now he's angry at it, he did this to it, but later on he will worship it again. If he did something to deface it or to destroy it, to cut off a piece, so that's a permanent thing that he did, so we say he is מבטל it. But if he did something just to show disgust of the עבודה זרה, but he didn't do anything to damage it, that is not enough to be מבטל it.

מכרה, if he sold it, או משכנה, or he gave it as a משכון, he gave it as collateral for a loan, רבי אומר ביטל, רבי says this is enough to be מבטל it because he shows that he doesn't care about it, and we can't say he will come back and worship it later because he sold it, or he gave it away to somebody as a משכון. So therefore we say he was מבטל it. וחכמים אומרים, the חכמים say, לא ביטל, this is not מבטל it. Then the גמרא says turning the case where it's defaced, even if there's nothing missing of it, it is still מבטל it, כיוון דלא חיסרה במאי ביטלה, the גמרא asks, since he didn't make anything miss of it, so how is he מבטל it? אמר רב זביד, so רב זביד said, שפיכסה בפניה, he defaced it in its face, which means he ruined its image, its face. He took a hammer and banged on its face. So even though there was nothing missing from it, but he changed the structure of the face and that is enough to be מבטל it. Then the גמרא continues, it's that in the משנה, רקק בפניה, if he spit in front of it, והישתין בפניה, if he urinated in front of it, it is not בטל. And we've said before, because we assume that he will later on worship it again. So the גמרא asks מנא הני מילי, how do we know this? אמר חזקיה, so חזקיה said, דאמר קרא, because there's a פסוק that says, this is in ישעיה, קפיטל ח' פסוק כ"א, that says, והיה כי ירעב, it'll be if he will be hungry, the גוי will be hungry, והתקצף, and he will get angry, וקלל במלכו ובאלהיו, and he's going to curse his king and his God, ופנה למעלה, and he's going to turn upwards, which means he's going to get angry at his עבודה זרה and he'll turn his face upwards to השם. וכתיב בתריה, what does it say later on? ואל ארץ יביט, he's going to look down to the earth, והנה צרה וחשכה, there's distress and darkness, וגומר, etc. So the פסוק tells us, אף על גב דקילל מלכו ובאלהיו, even though he cursed his God and his king, ופנה למעלה, and he turned his face upwards, he turned to השם, nevertheless the פסוק continues, אל ארץ יביט, he looks back down to the earth, and after a while he looks back down to his עבודה זרה. So we see, from the fact that a גוי gets angry at עבודה זרה, it doesn't prove that he is מבטל

it, because later on when he quiets down he's going to worship it again. Only if he actually did something to destroy it, that's when the עבודה זרה is בטל. Then the גמרא continues that, turned to the משנה, מכרה או משכנה, if he sold it or he gave it as a משכון, רבי אומר ביטל וכולי, רבי says this is enough to be מבטל it, but the חכמים said that this is not מבטל. זירא אמר רב יוחנן ורבי ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב, there's a מחלוקת here between זירא in the name of רב יוחנן, and רבי ירמיה בר אבא in the name of רב. חד אמר, one of them says, מחלוקת בצורף עובד כוכבים, that the מחלוקת between רבי and the חכמים is only when he sells it to a גויישה smelter, אבל בצורף ישראל דברי הכל ביטל, but if he sells it to a Jewish smelter, so then everyone agrees it's בטל, because normally if a גוי sells his עבודה זרה, to whom would he sell it to? It's a piece of metal, probably he would sell it to to a smelter, and he says the מחלוקת is if he sells it to a גויישה smelter. So that's the reason why the חכמים say he's not מבטל it, because the גוי who sold it feels that since he sold it to another גוי, another idol worshiper, so מסתמא, the other idol worshiper will not break it and he will worship it, and therefore the חכמים feel that by selling it to him, it is not enough to say that he was מבטל the עבודה זרה. But רבי holds that nevertheless, since he sold it to a גויישה smelter, he knows that the reason he bought it was to smelt it down, so רבי holds that it is בטל. אבל בצורף ישראל, but if he sold it to a Jewish smelter, דברי הכל ביטל, everyone holds he's מבטל it. Even the חכמים would agree that this is ביטול. Why? Because when the גוי sold it to a Jewish smelter, he knows for sure that he is going to smelt it down. So therefore by selling it to him, this is a form of ביטול. וחד אמר, but one says, no, בצורף ישראל מחלוקת, the argument is when you sell it to a Jewish smelter, that רבי holds that this is a form of ביטול, but the חכמים say that even though you sold it to a Jewish smelter, it's still not a form of ביטול. איבעיא להו, but the question that was asked is, בצורף ישראל מחלוקת אבל בצורף עובד כוכבים דברי הכל לא ביטול? When the second opinion said that the מחלוקת is when you sold it to a Jewish smelter, what did he mean? Did he mean that the מחלוקת is only when you sold it to a Jewish smelter, but if you sold it to a גויישע smelter, everyone agrees that it's not בטל? Even רבי agrees that if you sell it to a גויישע smelter it's not בטל, so the מחלוקת is only if you sold it to a Jewish smelter? או דלמא, maybe בין בזה ובין בזה מחלוקת, and the מחלוקת is in both, and the second opinion holds that the מחלוקת is also when you sell it to a Jewish smelter. He didn't mean to say that the מחלוקת is only when you sell it to a Jewish smelter. The מחלוקת is also when you sell it to a Jewish smelter, because the first opinion said that מחלוקת is only if you sell it to a גויישע smelter, but if you sell it to a Jewish smelter, everyone agrees that it's בטל, comes the second opinion and says it's not true, and the מחלוקת is also if you sold it to a Jewish smelter, but not that the מחלוקת is only when you sold it to a Jewish smelter. Because the way the גמרא said the second opinion, it just said that he holds בצורף ישראל מחלוקת, that the מחלוקת is when you sell it to a Jewish smelter, but it didn't say what would be if you sell it to a גויישע smelter. Is the פשט that there, there is also מחלוקת, or is the פשט that there, everyone agrees that it's not בטל, because since he sold it to a גוי, everyone agrees that he thinks that probably the גוי will not destroy it, but will worship it? The גמרא says, תא שמע, come here, I will try to answer your question, because we learned in a ברייתא, דאמר רבי, רבי said, נראין דברי כשאמכרה לחבלה, my words seem to be right, my opinion seems to be right if he sold it to be destroyed, ודברי חבירי כשאמכרה לעובדה, and the words of my friends, of the other חכמים, their opinion seems to be right if he sold it to be worshiped. And the גמרא explains the words in this ברייתא, and after the גמרא explains it, we will see how this is a proof, an answer to the question we had before. מאי לחבלה מאי לעובדה? What does the ברייתא mean when it says that רבי said that my words are right if it was sold לחבלה, to be destroyed, and the words of my friends are right if it was sold to be worshiped? What do we mean with that? אילימא if you're going to say לחבלה לחבלה ממש, when he says if it was sold to be destroyed I am right, he meant actually to be destroyed, and when he said that my חבירים seem to be right if it was לעובדה, לעובדה ממש, it means if he actually sold it to be worshiped, that can't be! מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר ביטל ומאי טעמא דמאן דאמר לא ביטל? What would be the reason of the one that holds it is בטל? In other words, the מחלוקת here is, it seems, in both cases. Since רבי uses the לשון, my words seem to be right in one case, and the חכמים's words seem to be right in the other case, is משמע that they argue in both cases, and רבי is just saying that logically, my opinion is right in one of the two cases, and the opinion of the חכמים is logical in the other two cases.

איי, one might ask, if he feels that his opinion is logical only in one case, why does he say his opinion in the other case also? So we must say, because when רבי said his opinion that if you sell the עבודה זרה, it is בטל, he meant to say, this is the way I heard from my רבי'ס that this is the דין. And when the חכמים said that they hold it is not בטל, what they meant to say is that we heard from our רבי'ס that the דין is it's not בטל. And that's what רבי said, that my opinion, even though I heard it in both cases, seems to be right only in the case if it was sold to be destroyed. And the words of my of the my friends, the חכמים, seem to be right in the case where it was sold to be worshiped. Now if we're going to say he meant clearly to be destroyed means actually to be destroyed, and when he says to be worshiped, it means actually to be worshiped, but this doesn't make sense, because if worship means actually it was sold to be worshiped, מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר ביטל? So what would be the reason of רבי who says that it is בטל? If he says clearly, 'I am selling it in order for you to worship it', and the one that buys it said he's going to worship it, so how could רבי say that it is בטל? And the same thing in the other case, that if it's sold clearly to be destroyed, מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר לא ביטל? What could be the reason of the one that holds that it's not בטל? If the one that buys it says clearly that I will destroy it, so why should the חכמים say it's not בטל? אלא לאו, therefore we must say, לחבלה למי שעשוי לחבלה. That when רבי says that my words seem to be right if it was

sold to be destroyed, it doesn't mean it was outright said that it's going to be destroyed. It means that it was sold to a person that we assume that he will destroy it. ומאן ניהו? Who's the person that we assume will destroy it? צורף ישראל. That means that he sold it to a Jewish smelter. Then when he says that the words of the חכמים seem to be right in the case where it was sold to be worshiped, doesn't mean that it was said outright that he will worship it, but it means לעובדה למי שעשוי לעובדה, to somebody that we assume that will worship it. ומאן ניהו? Who is it? צורף עובד כוכבים, that if it's a smelter, a גוי. So this there, even though nothing was said, and he is a smelter, which means we could think that he might destroy it, but we assume he probably will not destroy it. And רבי said that my opinion seems to be right if it was sold to be destroyed, which means, according to this פשט, it was sold to a Jewish smelter. And the words of the חכמים seem to be right if it was sold to a גויישער smelter. Now, since he says my words seem to be right, that means that באמת he is saying in both cases the same דין that it's בטל. He just says that logically, my opinion is only right in the case where it was sold to a Jewish smelter. And the חכמים's opinion seems to be right if it was sold to a גויישער smelter. But it seems as if that they said their opinion in both cases. רבי is just saying it seems to be right in that one case. שמע מינה, doesn't that prove that בין בזה ובין בזה מחלוקת, that the מחלוקת is in both? That since רבי said my opinion seems to be right in the case of a ייד and their opinion seems to be right in the case of a גוי, is משמע that the argument was in both. He's just saying that my opinion seems to be right in one of the two and theirs in the other. But his opinion was actually said in both cases, which means that he heard that the דין is ביטול in both cases, and when the חכמים said לא ביטלו, they heard this opinion, this דין, in both cases. So the גמרא says לא, no, הכא קאמר, this is what the ברייתא could mean: אמר רבי that רבי said, נראין דברי לחבירי כשמכרה לחבלה. When he said my words seem to be right, he didn't mean that my words seem to be right to me, which means that even though I am saying my opinion in both cases, but logically it's only in one of the two. What he means to say is that my words are accepted, seem to be right to my friends, כשמכרה לחבלה, if it was sold to be destroyed, ומנו? צורף ישראל, and that means he sold it to a Jewish smelter. What he's saying is that the חכמים seem to agree to me in the case where it was sold to a Jewish smelter, שאף חבירי לא נחלקו עלי, because even my friends don't argue against me, אלא כשמכרה לעובדו, only if he sold it to be worshipped, which means if he sold it to a גויישע smelter. אבל לחבלה מודו לי, but if it was sold to a Jewish smelter, then they agree to me. And this is what he meant, that my opinion seems to be right to the חכמים, which means they agree to my opinion in the case where it was sold to a ייד, which really could mean that the חכמים argue only in the case where it was sold to a גוי, but in the case where it was sold to a ייד, they don't argue. And since this could be the פשט in that ברייתא, so we have no ראיה from the ברייתא that the מחלוקת was in both cases. Now let's just look back at the ברייתא and see how we will learn פשט in the ברייתא according to this פשט. Because the ברייתא had two parts to it. One part is that רבי said that my words seem to be right כשמכרה לחבלה, and the words of the חכמים seem to be right כשמכרה לעובדו. Now, the first part of the ברייתא we explained, that what does it mean that he said that my words seem to be right to the חכמים, which means they agree in the case where it was sold לחבלה, meaning if it was sold to a ייד. How will we learn פשט in the second half of the ברייתא, where it says that the words of my חברים, of the חכמים, seem to be right כשמכרה לעובדו? So רש״י explains the פשט is that the second half of this ברייתא is only a המשך, a continuation and explanation of the beginning. The ברייתא means like this: רבי says that my words seem to be right to the חכמים when it was sold לחבלה, which means to a ייד. Why? Because דברי חבירי כשמכרה לעובדו, because the words of my חברים were only said if it was sold to a גוי to be worshipped, not that the second half of the ברייתא means that the words of the חברים seem to be right כשמכרה לעובדו, as we thought before the פשט. The פשט according to the way we're learning now is that because the words of my חברים were only said if מכרה לעובדו. And רש״י says we could even prove it from the words of the ברייתא, because the ברייתא starts off that אמר רבי, נראין דברי כשמכרה לחבלה, ודברי חבירי שמכרה לעובדו. It doesn't say נראין דברי כשמכרה לחבלה ונראין דברי חבירי שמכרה לעובדו, that my words seem to be right if it was sold לחבלה, and the words of my חברים seem to be right ומכרה לעובדו. The second time it doesn't say the words נראין. So therefore, what we learn is that the פשט is like this: נראין דברי כשמכרה לחבלה, my words seem to be right if it was sold לחבלה, and we're learning now it means it seems to be right to the חכמים, that the חכמים agree in the case where it was sold לחבלה, which means to a גוי, because דברי חבירי שמכרה לעובדו, because the words of my חברים were only said in the case where it was sold לעובדו, which means to a גוי, that that's the only place where they argue. So according to this פשט, the ברייתא is telling us that the מחלוקת is only in the case where it was sold to a גוי, but in the case where it was sold to a ייד, everyone agrees that it is בטל. Then the גמרא says מיתיבי, I will ask you a קשיא: We

learned, הלוקח גרוטאות מן עובדי כוכבים, if someone buys scrap metal from a גוי, ומצא בהן עבודת כוכבים, and he found an עבודה זרה amongst it, Now, אם עד שלא נתן מעות, משך, if before he paid money, he pulled and took it into his רשות, יחזיר, he could give it back, since he didn't pay for it yet, so it's not considered his yet, so he's able to give it back. Now, if the גוי will be מבטל it, he's able to buy it again. But the fact that he took it doesn't make it his to say that now it is an עבודה זרה of a איד. So he's able to give it back. But אם משנתן מעות, משך, if after he paid the money, that's when he pulled it into his רשות, now it's his already. Now, if he's going to give it back and try to get his money back, it'll be as if he is selling his עבודה זרה, and that's not allowed, because it became his already. So now that it's his, he can't have הנאה from this עבודה זרה, and he cannot even give it back to the גוי to be מבטל it, because as we said before, a גוי cannot be מבטל an עבודה זרה of a איד. So יוליך לים המלח, all he could do is to throw it into the ים המלח, into the Salt Sea, and let it be destroyed. And even though it was משיכה בטעות, when he made the משיכה, when he took it into his רשות, it was by mistake, because he didn't intend to buy an עבודה זרה, so why shouldn't he be able to give it back? Because we say, since he paid for it, so

later on if he'll give it back, it's going to be as if he is selling it. And therefore, even though the גוי sold, sold this עבודה זרה to the איד, we don't say that by selling this עבודה זרה, the עבודה זרה is בטל, and therefore the איד is able to keep it, but we say it is not בטל, and therefore the only thing he can do with it is destroy it. Now the גמרא says, אי אמרת בשלמא, if you're going to say בצורף ישראל מחלוקת, the מחלוקת between רבי and the חכמים, that רבי holds if a גוי sold an עבודה זרה, it is בטל, and the חכמים hold it is not בטל, the מחלוקת is if it was sold to a איד, a Jewish smelter, so then we could understand this דין because הא מני? רבנן היא. So this דין goes according to the רבנן, that this is a case where the גוי sold the עבודה זרה to a איד, but nevertheless, we say that the רבנן hold that it is not בטל. So therefore, here the דין is that he has to get rid of it. אלא אי אמרת בצורף עובד כוכבים מחלוקת, but if you're going to say as the one opinion before, that the מחלוקת is if it was sold to a גוייש smelter, אבל בצורף ישראל דברי הכל ביטל, but if it was sold to a Jewish smelter, everyone agrees that it's בטל, הא מני? So this דין doesn't fit according to anybody, because here is a case where the גוי sold the עבודה זרה to a איד. Now, if we're going to say everyone agrees that if a גוי sells an עבודה זרה to a איד, the עבודה זרה is בטל, so in this case it should be בטל! Why is the דין that he has to get rid of this עבודה זרה? So doesn't this prove that the מחלוקת is even if it was sold to a Jewish smelter? And it's a קשיא on the one that says that the מחלוקת is if it was sold to a גוייש smelter, but if it was sold to a Jewish smelter everyone agrees it's בטל. So the גמרא says it's no ראיה from here: שאני התם, here it's different, because אדעתא דגרוטאות זבן, when the גוי sold the עבודה זרה, he sold it with the intentions of selling scrap metal, אדעתא דעבודת כוכבים לא זבן, he didn't intend to sell it as an עבודה זרה, which means when he sold the scrap metal, he probably didn't realize that there's an עבודה זרה there. So he didn't keep in mind that he is selling an עבודה זרה. So the truth is, that could be that the דין is that if a גוי sells an עבודה זרה, knowing that this is an עבודה זרה, and he sells it to a איד, everyone agrees that this is בטל. The reason here the דין is it's not בטל, because he didn't realize that he's selling an עבודה זרה, and therefore it is not בטל. Then the גמרא continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, לווה עליה, if a גוי borrowed money on it, he borrowed money from somebody else and gave this as a משכון, even if he borrowed it from a Jew, and he gave the Jew this as a משכון, או שנפלה עליה מפולת, or if a whole bunch of stones fell on it, and the גוי didn't care to clean it up and take the עבודה זרה out, או שגנבוה ליסטים, or if robbers stole it and the גוי is not looking to get it back, או שהניחוה בעלים והלכו להם למדינת הים, or if the owner, the גוייש owner left it and went to a faraway country, so the דין is like this, אם עתידין לחזור כמלחמת יהושע, if the גוים planned to come back and take it, like it was in the מלחמה, in the war יהושע had against the כנענים, and the גמרא will explain what that means, because actually, they didn't come back in the case of יהושע, so the גמרא will explain this mean, what this means, but what he's saying here is, that if they planned to come back, אינם בטלות, so in all these cases, the עבודה זרה is not בטל. And the גמרא will explain now, why it has to say all these cases. וצריכא, we need all these different cases, דאי תנא לווה עליה, and the גמרא says וצריכא, it has to tell us all these cases that in all these cases it's not בטל, and it's not enough if it would just mention one case and we would understand ourselves in the other cases, because דאי תנא לווה עליה, if it would just say the case that the גוי borrowed money on it, so I would think that in this case only it is not בטל, because מדלא זבנה, since he didn't sell it, לא בטלה, it is not בטל, because he only borrowed on it, so he probably plans to get it back when he pays the loan, so that's why it's not בטל, אבל נפלה עליה מפולת, but in the case where stones fell on it, מדלא קא מפני לה, since he is not cleaning it up, אימא אימא, I would say בטולי בטליה, that it is בטיל. צריכא, that's why it has to say that not only in the case where he borrowed money on it it is not בטיל, but also in the case where the מפולת fell on it, it's still not בטיל, even though he is not trying to clean it up right now. ואי תני נפלה עליה מפולת, if it would just say the case that if a מפולת fell on it it is not בטיל, I would think משום דסבר, because the גוי has in mind, הא מנחא, after all it's laying there, כל אימת דבעינא שקילנא לה, whenever I want, I will take it. So the fact that he doesn't clean it up is not a ראיה that he is מבטל it, and that is the reason why it's not בטיל. אבל גנבוה ליסטים, but in the case where robbers stole it, מידי דלא קא מהדר אבתרה, since he's not looking for it, not trying to get it back from the robbers, בטולי בטליה, he is מבטל it, because here he can't say, "Well, whenever I want, I'll get it," because the robbers took it. So I would think in this case, when he doesn't try to get it back, it is בטיל. צריכא, that's why it has to tell us this case too, that even in the case of robbers, it's still not בטיל. ואי תני גנבוה ליסטים, and if it would just say the דין that if robbers stole it it's not בטיל, I would think משום דסבר, because the גוי thinks, אי עובד כוכבים שקלה, מפלח פלח לה. If a גוי took it, then the גוי will worship it. אי ישראל שקלה, if a ייד took it, then איידי דדמיה יקרים, since it's very expensive, מזבן לה לעובד כוכבים ומפלח לה, he'll sell it to a גוי and that גוי will worship it. And the fact that he is not trying to get it back from the robbers is no ראיה that he is מבטל it. אדרבה, just opposite, he has in mind that this will be worshipped anyway. If a גוי took it, then that גוי that took it will worship it. If a ייד took it, probably the ייד will sell it to a גוי to worship it. אבל הניחוה בעליה והלכו להם למדינת הים, but in the case where the owners, the גוים, left it and went away to a faraway

country, they left on their own, so here we would say מידי דלא שקלו בהדייהו, since they didn't take it along with them, בטולי בטלוה, they definitely were מבטל it. So I would think the דין in this case is that it is בטיל. צריכא, that's why it has to tell us this דין also. Now the גמרא asks, it says there, עתידין לחזור כמלחמת יהושע אינה בטלה, that if they plan to come back like it was in the מלחמת יהושע, then the עבודה זרה is not בטילה. Now the גמרא asks, מידי דמלחמת יהושע מי הדר הדור? Is it true that in the מלחמה of יהושע they came back? They didn't come back. When יהושע conquered ארץ ישראל and chased the גוים out, they didn't come back. So what do we mean here that if they plan to come back like it was in the מלחמת יהושע? The גמרא says, הכא קאמר, this is what the ברייתא meant: אם עתידין לחזור, if they plan to come back, הרי הוא כמלחמת יהושע, then it has the same דין as in the time of the מלחמה of יהושע, ואין לה בטילה, and it's not בטילה. Just like when יהושע conquered ארץ ישראל, and the גוים went out to wage war against the יידן, and they left their עבודה זרה, and when the יידן came back and found the עבודה זרהs, the יידן were not allowed to have any הנאה from that עבודה זרה, as the פסוק says clearly, ולא ידבק בידך מאומה מן החרם, that the יידן should not keep anything of the חרם of the עבודה זרה they will find in ארץ ישראל. And the reason is, because even though the גוים went away and left the עבודה זרה, but since in their mind they intended to come back, for they hoped to win the war, so they were not מבטל it. So therefore, in any case where the גוים leave it, and plan to come back, we say that it has the same דין like in the מלחמה of יהושע, that עבודה זרה is not בטילה. But then the גמרא asks: ולמה לי למיתלי במלחמת יהושע, but why does he have to connect it to the מלחמה of יהושע? Why doesn't he just say that if the owners plan to come back, it is not בטילה? And it's obvious, and the reason is obvious: why should it become בטיל? If he goes away and leaves it, and doesn't plan to come back, so we could think that this is a form of ביטול. But if he plans to come back, why should it be בטיל? So the דין is understood. Why does he have to connect it to the מלחמה of יהושע, as if he's bringing a proof to this דין that just like it was in the מלחמה of יהושע, that since they left planning to come back it's not בטיל, so too whenever they plan to come back it's not בטיל? Why is that important? Why do we have to connect it to מלחמת יהושע? The

גמרא answers, מילתא אגב אורחא קא משמע לן, he wants to teach us something by the way. כי הא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב, that רב יהודה said in the name of רב, he wants to teach us that דין. What was his דין? ישראל שזקף לבנה להשתחות לה, if a ייד put up a brick in order to bow down to it, he took a brick which was his and he planned to bow down to it as an עבודה זרה, but he didn't bow down to it yet, ובא עובד כוכבים והשתחוה לה, and then came a גוי and bowed down to it, אסרה, he made it אסור, because by the second person bowing down to it, this is the form of worship of עבודה זרה, and it's אסור. If the ייד would not have picked up this brick to do it, then it wouldn't become אסור even if another person would come and worship it. Why? Because the rule is, אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, a person cannot אסר something that's not his. But if a person will take someone else's object and bow down to it, it won't become אסור, because it's not his. But since the first person picked it up in order to worship it, so he already showed that he himself is happy if it's being worshipped, so then, if an idol worshipper came over later and worshipped it he does make it אוסר. And the question is מנלן, how do we know that? דאסר, he makes it אוסר? אמר רב אלעזר, said רב אלעזר, כתחילה של ארץ ישראל, like in the beginning of ארץ ישראל. What does that mean? אמר רחמנא, the תורה says, ואשריהם תשרפון באש, that their trees that were worshiped, the trees which are עבודה זרה, you must burn in fire. And the

question is, מכדי ירושה היא להם מאבותיהם, after all, isn't ארץ ישראל a ירושה to the אידן from their parents? Because השם said to אברהם אבינו, כי לך אתננה, that I will give to you ארץ ישראל. So comes out that ארץ ישראל belonged to אברהם אבינו already from the time that השם spoke to him. Now since ארץ ישראל belonged to אברהם אבינו, so the land and anything that's connected to the land belonged to him and didn't belong to the גוים. And the rule is ואין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, a person cannot אוסר something that's not his. So how could the פסוק say that the trees that the גוים bowed down to was עבודה זרה and has to be burned when the trees were not theirs, so by them bowing down to it they couldn't אוסר it? So why is the דין that the תורה said that you have to burn it? ואי משום הנך דמעיקרא, איי, you're going to say that maybe there were trees that they were there before ארץ ישראל was given to אברהם אבינו, and since we don't know which ones are from before, which ones are from later, that's why the תורה says burn them all. But those, בביטול בעלמא סגי להו, those you didn't have to burn, those you could be מבטל. All the אידן had to do, get a גוי and force him to be מבטל that עבודה זרה. Since it's an עבודה זרה of a גוי, you could be מבטל it. And the דין is you could even force the גוי to be מבטל עבודה זרה. So

why does the תורה say burn it? Let's be מבטל it! And since the תורה says we should burn it, obviously we cannot be מבטל it. So we must say that this is because עבודה זרה has some connection to the אידן. But how does the אשרה that the גוים worshiped before the אידן entered ארץ ישראל have to do with עבודה זרה of a איד? אלא we must say, מי דפלחו ישראל לעגל, since the אידן worshiped the עגל, the golden calf, גלו אדעתייהו, they revealed their mind, דניחא להו בעבודת כוכבים, that they're happy with עבודה זרה. And therefore, וכי אתו עובדי כוכבים, when the גוים came, and they worshiped the עבודה זרה in ארץ ישראל, שליחותא דידהו עבדי, they did the שליחות, the mission of the איד. And that is the reason why when the גוים worshiped עבודה זרה, it is as if they're doing it the שליחות from a איד. So even though normally אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, a person cannot אוסר something that's not his, but if the person who owns it revealed his mind that he's happy if it will be used for עבודה זרה, so then even if somebody else comes and worships it, it does become אסור. And that's why over there when the גוים worshiped those trees, and even though it wasn't theirs because it belonged to the אידן, it became אסור because the אידן revealed their mind that they're happy with עבודה זרה. And that is the reason why a גוי couldn't be מבטל it either, because since they're doing it the שליחות of a איד, it's like an עבודה זרה of a איד, and a גוי can't be מבטל it. So just like we said this דין concerning the עבודה זרה of ארץ כנען that was

worshiped by the גוים before the אידן entered, הכא נמי the same דין here, ישראל שזקף לבנה, when a איד picks up this לבנה in order to worship it, גלי אדעתיה דניחא ליה בעבודת כוכבים, that shows, he revealed his mind that he is happy with עבודה זרה. וכי אתא עובד כוכבים, so now when a גוי came, ופלח לה, and he worshiped it, שליחותא דידיה עביד, so he did his שליחות. He's doing it for him. So even though this object is not his, and normally a person cannot make someone else's object אוסר, but in this case, if the first person, the owner, revealed that he is happy with this, so then the second person could אוסר it, and that's why it's אסור. But the גמרא asks: ודילמא בעגל הוא דניחא להו, במידי אחריני לא? Even though the Jews worshiped the עגל, but maybe they only wanted the עגל, not any other עבודה זרה? How can the גמרא say that since they worshiped the עגל that shows that they want עבודה זרה, and therefore all the עבודה זרות in ארץ כנען that were worshiped were considered as if they're being done in the שליחות of the אידן? But the אידן only showed that they want this עבודה זרה, the עגל! But how did they show that they want all עבודה זרות? And the

גמרא answers, אמר קרא, the פסוק says, that by the עגל, the אידן said, אלה אלהיך ישראל, this is your gods, אידן, מלמד, that teaches us, שאיוו לאלוהות הרבה, that they wanted many gods. That means at the time of the עגל, they revealed their mind that they're happy with all the עבודה זרות in the world, they want all the עבודה זרות. And therefore, any עבודה זרה that was worshiped in ארץ ישראל in their property, the property of the אידן, is valid, a valid עבודה זרה, because the אידן were מגלה דעת that any עבודה זרה is good for them. But then the גמרא asks: אי הכי, let us say, כל דבהדי עגל ניתסרו, anything that was worshiped in ארץ ישראל at the time of the עגל, when they revealed their mind that they're happy with עבודה זרה, that טאקע should be אסור, because we say that the גוים are doing it in the שליחות of the אידן, because the אידן revealed their mind they want all עבודה זרות, and the גוים are doing it, worshiped עבודה זרה with the property of the אידן, so that should be אסור. מכאן ואילך נשתרו? But any עבודה זרה that was worshiped worshipped in ארץ ישראל after the יידן did תשובה, that should be מותר, because later on the יידן did תשובה, and they didn't want עבודה זרה anymore. So later on, if a גוי worshipped עבודה זרה with the property of the יידן, we cannot say he's doing it in the שליחות of the ייד, because at that time the יידן don't want it anymore. So those should be מותר. And the גמרא answers: מאן מוכח, who's able to distinguish between them? Who's able to show that this was worshipped at the time of the עגל, and this was worshipped after that? And because of that, all of them are אסור, and that's the reason the תורה says that אשריהם תשרפון באש, that their עבודה זרה we must burn with fire. And now after all this, we understand what the ברייתא meant when it said that the reason the עבודה זרה is not בטל is because it's similar to the מלחמה of יהושע. The reason he mentioned the מלחמה of יהושע to teach us that we learn out certain דינים of עבודה זרה from the מלחמה of יהושע. That just like in the מלחמה of יהושע, the reason the עבודה זרה was אסור after the יידן went in was because even though ארץ ישראל belonged to the יידן from before, and therefore the גוים could not have אסר'ט the property of the יידן, nevertheless we say it's אסור because the יידן revealed that they're happy with עבודה זרה through the עגל. So then we say that the גוים were doing the שליחות of the ייד, and that's why the עבודה זרה was אסור. And that's the reason why you couldn't destroy it, because it's like an עבודה זרה of a ייד. So from that we learn out concerning the other דין of עבודה זרה, that if a ייד picks up a לבינה and he wants to bow down to it, but he didn't, he just reveals his mind that he is happy with עבודה זרה, if later on another person comes and worships it, that becomes אסור, even though that לבינה doesn't belong to the second person, but we say the סברא as we said concerning the יידן in ארץ ישראל, that since he revealed his mind that he is happy with this עבודה זרה, this automatically makes it that the second person who worships it is like his שליח, and therefore the דין is that this is אסור. So mentioning the מלחמה of יהושע is to tell us that we should learn out the דינים of עבודה זרה from the מלחמה of יהושע, and if we do that, we will know this דין, that if a ישראל זקף לבינה and the other person came and bowed down to it, then this לבינה is אסור as an עבודה זרה. But we also have to add another point, that not only is this לבינה אסור as an עבודה זרה, but it is also אסור as an עבודה זרה of a ייד. And therefore it never would become בטל. That even though the one that actually worshipped the עבודה זרה was a גוי, but since we say that he did it as a form of שליחות from the ייד, so it has a דין like the עבודה זרה of a ייד, and therefore it will never become בטל. And תוספות says this is the reason why it's said in the ברייתא, אם עתידין לחזור כמלחמת יהושע אינה בטילה עולמית, that if they plan to come back like it was in the מלחמה of יהושע, then it never could become בטל. When we add the word עולמית, it means that it never could become בטל, that a גוי could never be מבטל it. And the reason why a גוי can't be מבטל it is as we said before, since these words אם עתידין לחזור כמלחמת יהושע comes to teach us the דין that רב יהודה said, and in that case we say the reason why it is אסור is because the גוי is doing the שליחות of the ייד, so ממילא it comes out it has a דין like an עבודה זרה of a ייד, and therefore it is never בטל. The same as it was in the עבודה זרה of ארץ ישראל, that even if they would want a גוי to be מבטל it, it wouldn't help because it has a דין of עבודה זרה of a ייד. So too, the case of ישראל זקף לבינה ובא עכו''ם ופלח לה, we say that this is an עבודה זרה, it also never could become בטל because it has a דין like עבודה זרה of a ייד. Because if it would have a דין like an עבודה זרה of a גוי, then it should have ביטול. Because this is for sure, תוספות says, that if a גוי leaves over an עבודה זרה, even if he plans to come back and he wasn't מבטל it, it still could become בטל through another גוי. So how can we say אינה בטילה עולמית? But the פשט is that it has a דין not like an עבודה זרה of a גוי, but like an עבודה זרה of a ייד. And then תוספות says, when רש''י says that the reason we compare it to a מלחמת יהושע is because just like by מלחמת יהושע the גוים intended to come back even though actually they didn't come back, so too, whenever they intend to come back, it can't become בטל עולמית, so תוספות says רש''י only meant to answer and explain the לשון of הרי היא כמלחמת יהושע, but not that this is actually the reason for the דין. Because the reason why this can never become בטל is not because they intended to come back. The reason is because, as the גמרא says, because the גוים worshipped it על דעת of the יידן, and therefore it has a דין like עבודה זרה of a ייד, and it can never become בטל. What we're saying, that they intended to come back like מלחמת יהושע, is just trying to tell us that in that way it's similar. That just like מלחמת יהושע the אמוריים planned to come back, so too, in a case where he plans to come back, it is אסור, but not that this is the reason why אין בטילה עולמית. The reason is because he's doing it על דעת דישראל. And באמת this is the reason why the גמרא originally asked: Why do you have to connect it to מלחמת יהושע? Since the reason why by מלחמת יהושע was not dependent on the fact that they planned to come back, but the reason is, as the גמרא says, that because they worshiped על דעת of the ישראל, and that is the reason why אינה בטילה עולמית, you never could be מבטל it, because it has a דין of עבודה זרה of ישראל. That's why the גמרא asked, why do we connect this to מלחמת יהושע? And the answer is that this teaches us the דין as it was מלחמת יהושע, that just מלחמת just like in מלחמת יהושע, the reason the גוים were able to אסר it was because the יידן were מגלה דעת that they want עבודה זרה, and therefore the גוים are שלוחותא דהאי קא עבדי. The same thing, when a ישראל זקף לבינה and לא פלח לה, and came a גוי ופלח לה, he does make it אסור, and this could never become בטל. Another thing the תוספות says, that when we say the דין that if a ייד put up a לבינה in order to worship it, but didn't worship it, and then a גוי came and he bowed down to it, he makes it אסור, so תוספות says this is only if he bows down to this לבינה that the ייד picked up. But if a גוי would come and take another לבינה of the same ייד and take it up and be משתחוה לה, it wouldn't become אסור. איי, we're saying that since the ייד was מגלה דעת he wants עבודה זרה, ממילא the גוי שלוחותא דהאי קא עביד and he should make it אסור, so תוספות says, because we're able to say, maybe the ייד only wants that לבינה to be an עבודה זרה, but concerning another לבינה, we don't have the גילוי דעת of the ייד, and therefore a גוי would not make it אסור. But if he does it to the same לבינה that the ייד was זוקף, then we say that the גוי does make it אסור. Concerning this דין that the גמרא said that אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, that a person cannot make something that's not his אסור, so the reason for that is, as the רמב"ם says in הלכות שחיטה פרק א הלכה כד, taken from the גמרא in חולין דף מ"א עמוד א, and also in other places, he says שאין אדם מישראל אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, because a ייד cannot אסר something that's not his, and the reason is שאין כוונתו אלא לצער, because we say that the כוונה of the one that did the עבירה was not in order to do the עבירה, but he did it only to be מצער, to make suffer the one that the object belongs to. When does an object become אסור? If you are מכוון, if you intend to do the עבירה with the object. For instance, by עבודה זרה, the person who bowed down to the עבודה זרה intended to worship it, then it becomes אסור. But since it's not his, it belongs to someone else, so we say that maybe he didn't intend actually to worship, this wasn't in his mind, what he did was intended to make that person suffer, and that's why he did it, the other person should think that he made it אסור. And because his כוונה was not for עבודה זרה, ממילא it doesn't become אסור. But לכאורה this is not understood, because according to this, why do we say that for sure it doesn't become אסור? This סברא that the one that did the עבירה is מכוון only to be מצער, but is not מכוון for איסור, is not a sure סברא. We are not sure what he has in his mind. It's only a ספק. Maybe when he did it, he didn't intend to do the עבירה, he meant to be מצער his friend. But since it's only a ספק, so how can we come up with the statement of אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, that if he did it to someone else's thing it definitely is not אסור? At least it should be אסור מספק. Plus, why do we connect it to the idea of אינו שלו? Why do we say that this is because it's not his? It has nothing to do with the idea of it not being his. The כלל should be that anytime we suspect that maybe it wasn't intended for an עבירה, but it was intended to be מצער, or any other סברא we have that it was intended to, then it is not אסור. But since we use the rule אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, you cannot אסר something that's not yours, it seems as if the reason it can't become אסור is because it's not yours. But according to what we said before, the reason is not because it's not yours, the reason is because he didn't intend for an עבירה. So why do we mention the idea of it not being שלו? So רב חיים עוזר in the שאלות ותשובות אחיעזר חלק ב סימן ש"ה, and other אחרונים explain it as follows: that באמת, we know that this דין that אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, a person cannot make someone else's thing אסור, only applies to an איסור that comes through מחשבה, through a person's thought, but not concerning an איסור that comes through a מעשה. For instance, if a person will mix someone else's milk and meat, he definitely will make it אסור even though it is not his, because there the איסור comes through a מעשה. This דין is only in the case where the איסור comes through a מחשבה, through a thought, like by עבודה זרה. What makes it into עבודה זרה? The fact that you intend in your mind to worship it. So therefore the explanation is as follows: In order for a person to have an effect on an object, it could be one of the two ways: or you do something to the object, so then you affected it, or even even if you didn't touch it, you didn't do anything to it, you stood in your place and the object was in its place, and you thought something in your mind about the object. It could have an effect on the object if there is a connection between you and the object. For instance, if the object is yours, so then your מחשבה concerning the object has an effect on the object. But in the case where you did not do a מעשה to the object, so you didn't touch it, on the other hand, the object is also not yours, so there is no connection between you and the object, so how can a person's מחשבה have an effect on the object? The person's מחשבה is in his mind, it is not revealed, it doesn't come out of him, and the object is an object which is outside of him, so how can his מחשבה, which is in him and is not seen on the outside, have an effect on the object? Therefore the כלל is like this: if it is מחשבתו ניכרת מתוך מעשיו, if he does an act that reveals his מחשבה definitely, so then, even though it's only a מחשבה, it could have an effect on the object. Because this is a מחשבה that comes out into the open, it's revealed outside of the person, it is a very definite מחשבה, so therefore, just like a מעשה could affect the object, his מחשבה could also affect the object. Just like a מעשה goes out of the person into the object and affects it, the same thing with a מחשבה that comes out of the person that's revealed, so it also goes out of the person, and since it's an obvious מחשבה concerning the object, so it could affect the object. And therefore, if it is a מחשבה which is obvious that this is what it meant, then we say that this מחשבה could affect the object. But if it's if it's a מחשבה that maybe this is what it meant, and maybe not, and it is not obvious, so then this מחשבה cannot affect the object. So even if he did mean that, but לפועל, such a מחשבה which is not clear in the outside cannot affect the object through that מחשבה. And that is the reason that we say that אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו. The reason why he cannot make it אסור is because it's not his, and therefore, his מחשבה cannot affect it. But nevertheless, they connected with the idea that כוונתו לצערו, that what he meant was to be מצער, that is just to say that it is not obvious from his מחשבה that this what he meant. Because if there would be no possibility in saying that he was מכוון to be מצער him, then we would say that since he bowed down to this object, so his מחשבה is very clear from his action of bowing down that this is what he meant, and therefore, his מחשבה could affect the object, even though it's not his. But since there is a possibility that he did not mean that with his מחשבה, that he meant to be מצער, but he didn't mean עבודה זרה, ממילא, his מחשבה is not obvious, so therefore, his מחשבה cannot affect the object. And that's what we say, that the reason why he can't אסר it is because אינו שלו, וממילא, his מחשבה cannot affect it. But nevertheless, we connect it to the idea that maybe he meant to be מצער him, because if we would be sure that he didn't mean to be מצער him, so even though it's a מחשבה and it's not his object, the מחשבה could still affect it. But since there is a possibility that he didn't mean עבודה זרה, ממילא, his מחשבה is not so obvious, and ממילא, he cannot אסר it, because it is not his. Another interesting thing here in this סוגיא is that the רמב"ם writes in הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח הלכה ג: ישראל שזקף לבינה להשתחוות לו ולא השתחוה לו (a איד who picked up a לבינה to bow down to it and didn't bow down to it), ובא עכו"ם והשתחוה לו (and a גוי came and did bow down to it), אסרה בהנאה (the גוי makes it אסור בהנאה), and the רמב"ם gives the reason: שזקיפתה מעשה, because his picking up, the fact that the איד picked up the לבינה, is a מעשה, is an action, and that's why the גוי is able to אסר it. So לכאורה, what does the רמב"ם mean with these words שזקיפתה מעשה, that picking up is a מעשה? The רמב"ם's source is from our גמרא as we understand, and in our גמרא it just says that when the איד picked up the לבינה, גלי אדעתיה דניחא ליה בעבודה זרה, that this revealed that he wants עבודה זרה, וכי אתא עכו"ם ופלח לה, when the גוי came to worship it, שליחותיה דהאי קא עביד, he did a שליחות. So it comes out that the reason why the picking up of the איד helped that the גוי is able to אסר it is because of the גילוי דעת that he revealed through the picking up, but not because he did a מעשה. And even more than that: the same גמרא that we have here is earlier in דף מ"ו עמוד א, and there, in the הוה אמינא, the גמרא thought that the reason that the second person could אסר it is

because it depends on תפיסת ידי אדם, it's because there was a מעשה done to it. And the מסקנא of the גמרא there is that it only depends on גילוי דעת, and as רש"י says, ובלא משום מעשה, it doesn't have anything to do with מעשה. So how does the רמב"ם know, or where does he take this idea from that the reason that the גוי will make it אסור is because the picking up of the איד was a מעשה? And to say, like some want to say, that these words שזקיפתה מעשה is a טעות הדפוס, is a mistake, is definitely the biggest דוחק possible. So the ליובאוויטשער רבי in לקוטי שיחות חלק י"א in פרשת כי תשא explains that the מקור of the רמב"ם is from the גמרא itself. The גמרא uses the לשון: מי דפלח ישראל לעגל גלו אדעתייהו דניחא להו בעבודה זרה. That since the אידן bowed down, worshipped the עגל, they were מגלה דעת that they want עבודה זרה. Now לכאורה, if the whole idea is just גילוי דעת without a מעשה, so why does the גמרא say that the way they were מגלה דעת was because they worshipped the עגל? The biggest גילוי דעת is when they said: עשה לנו, they said to אהרן: make us an עבודה זרה, a god, so that itself shows that they want. Because they actually said: make us a god, we want an עבודה זרה. That should be even more than the fact that they bowed down, they worshipped the עגל, when they actually revealed בדיבור their intent to make an עבודה זרה. So from here, the רמב"ם learns out that in order to reveal the מחשבה that you want an עבודה זרה so the second person should be able to אסר it, you have to reveal it through a מעשה, and it's not enough if you are מגלה דעת some other way, it has to be a גילוי דעת through a מעשה. And the explanation for that, why should you have to be מגלה דעת through a מעשה, the ליובאוויטשער רבי explains: because this whole idea that through the גילוי דעת of the person, the other person could אסר it because he becomes his שליח as the גמרא says, כי אסר עכו"ם אפולחנא שליחותיה דידיה קא עביד, but באמת, this is not a real שליחות, because we know אין שליח לדבר עבירה. And there is a discussion whether by a גוי we say that too. So could be by a גוי we also say אין שליח לדבר עבירה, especially עבודה זרה is one of the שבע מצות בני נח. So the סברא why we say אין שליח לדבר עבירה is because דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין, that the שליח didn't have to do it because it's against the דין. He wasn't allowed to do it, he should have listened to the השם rather than to the other person, applies also to the גוי in this case. Because the גוי is also מצווה, also commanded in the איסור of עבודה זרה. And also רוב פוסקים hold that אין שליחות לעכו"ם, even in the case where the שליח and the משלח are both גוים or, in this case, both מומרים, because the one that picked up the עבודה זרה, the לבינה to make עבודה זרה is also a מומר. So it comes out that באמת, to say that the גוי did the שליחות of a איד is very hard. What kind of שליחות is it? First of all, he's a גוי, and second of all, the question is whether there's a דין שליחות here. So therefore, in order that you should have some type of שליחות here, the one that makes the שליח has to reveal his רצון very strongly. So when he shows very strongly that this is really what he wants, then maybe we could say that there is a כעין some kind of שליחות here. And therefore, in order to reveal it in such a way, he has to reveal it through a מעשה. And the ליובאוויטשער רבי explains that this will answer another קשיא. The גמרא earlier in דף מ"ו asks the question, זקף ביעה לאשתחוות לה ולא אשתחוה לה, בא עכו"ם והשתחוה לה, מאי? אסורה היא או לא? That if a person picked up not a לבינה but an egg, and wanted to bow down to it, and then a גוי came and bowed down to it, is it אסור or not? And the גמרא explains that לבינה הוא דמינכרא תפיסה. By a לבינה where you could tell that it was picked up, maybe over there the דין is that the second person will אסר it. But by an egg, since you can't tell, maybe the גוי will not אסר it. לכאורה, what difference does it make whether you could tell that he picked it up or not? The

main thing is גילוי דעת. Main thing is that he revealed that he wants the עבודה זרה. So what difference does it make whether you could tell the fact that he picked it up or not? But nevertheless, he said he revealed his mind that he wants the עבודה זרה. And באמת, the בנין שלמה, רב שלמה קלוגר on the רמב"ם asks even a stronger question. The גמרא says בפירוש that the fact that the אידן said אלה אלהיך ישראל, that was a גילוי דעת that they wanted all עבודה זרות. So we see that just saying reveals it. So certainly picking up a ביעה, which is more than saying, certainly should be a ראיה for his גילוי דעת. But based on what we said before, it's understood, because the כלל is that גילוי דעת is not enough, it has to be גילוי דעת through a מעשה. And the גמרא's שאלה is, if it's a מעשה which is not מינכר, a מעשה that you cannot tell, is that enough to consider a מעשה לגבי the גילוי דעת? And concerning what the גמרא says that the אידן, when they said אלה אלהיך ישראל, that was a גילוי דעת that they want all עבודה זרה, there too it's no קשיא, because this came after they worshipped עבודה זרה. So together with the מעשה, so then the saying helps. But without a מעשה, even if we are sure that this is what he meant, it's not enough, as we said before, because in this case, in order to make it שליחות, you have to have a strong גילוי דעת only through a מעשה.