Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת עבודה זרה דף נ"ד, but we will start 18 lines from the bottom of דף נ"ג עמוד ב' from the beginning of the משנה. And the משנה says, "עבודת כוכבים שהניחוה עובדיה, if it was an עבודה זרה and its worshippers abandoned it, בשעת שלום, if it was done in the time of peace, מותרת, it's מותר. That since the גוים did not take it along with them and there was no reason for them to run away because it was in time of peace, there was no war, so that's a ראיה that the גוים were מבטל it, and therefore it's מותר. בשעת מלחמה, if they left it in the time of war, אסורה, it's אסור, because by leaving it, there is no ראיה that they meant to be מבטל it because the reason they left it because it was time of war and they had to run away. Then the משנה continues, בימוסיאות של מלכים, the pedestals of the kings, and those were places that they would place the עבודה זרה on when the king would pass by, הרי אלו מותרות, they are מותר. And the reason is, מפני שמעמידין אותה בשעה שהמלכים עוברין, that they put the עבודה זרה on it only at the time when the king passes. And after he passes, they take the עבודה זרה off. So this is not the permanent place for the עבודה זרה, וממילא this doesn't have a דין of עבודה זרה, and therefore it is מותר. But

nevertheless, the גמרא later on will ask a question that even though it is only put on when the king passes, but nevertheless, at that time the עבודה זרה is put on it, so still this should be אסור because of עבודה זרה. And the גמרא will explain. The גמרא says, אמר רבי ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב, רבי ירמיה בר אבא said in the name of רב, בית נמרוד, the house of נמרוד, which as רש"י explains, refers to the tower that they built in בבל at the time of the דור הפלגה, and the reason it is called the house of נמרוד because at that time נמרוד was the king on them, so therefore it is called the house of נמרוד. And this was a place that was built for עבודה זרה. So the גמרא says that הרי היא כעבודת כוכבים שהניחוה עובדיה בשעת שלום. This has a דין like an עבודה זרה that was left by its worshippers in the time of peace, ומותר, it is מותר. And if someone would find that מגדל, would find that tower, he would be able to have הנאה from it. Because after השם spread out the גוים and they left that place, it's considered as if they left it בשעת שלום. And as we said in the משנה, if an עבודה זרה is left in the time of peace, it is מותר. Because אף על גב דכתיב עד רמי רחמנא בשעת מלחמה דמי, because even though at the time השם dispersed them, it was considered like a time of war, but still אי בעו למיהדר הדור, and if they would want later on to come back, they could have come back. ומי דלא הדור, and since they didn't come back to take it, בתולה בטלוה, they were מבטל it, and therefore it is מותר. Then the גמרא continues, it quotes from the משנה where it says, בימוסיאות של מלכים הרי אלו מותרות, the pedestals of the kings are מותר. And the משנה gave the reason: because they put the עבודה זרה on it only at the time when the king passes, so it's not a permanent place for the עבודה זרה. And the גמרא asks, וכי מפני שמעמידין אותה בשעה שהמלכים עוברין מותרין? Because they only put the עבודה זרה there when the king passes, is it מותר? But after all, the עבודה זרה is put on it. So even though it's only for a while, but nevertheless, it is the place for עבודה זרה and it should be אסור. אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן, רבה בר בר חנה said in the name of רבי יוחנן, הכא קאמר, this is what the משנה meant, מפני שמעמידין אותם בשעה שהמלכים עוברין, because they put the עבודה זרה on it at the time when the kings pass, ומלכים מניחין דרך זו והולכין בדרך אחרת, but the kings leave that place that they put it on and they go through a different place, and the kings don't care about it. In other words, the fact that the עבודה זרה was put on this thing is not enough to force the king to go דווקא in this road. And therefore, since the king doesn't care to go דווקא here where the עבודה זרה is and it's possible for him to take a different road, is a ראיה that this is really not חשוב and not considered משמשי עבודה זרה, it's not considered like something that serves עבודה זרה. Because if it would, the king would never have the חוצפה, so to speak, not to go through that road. And since he does, obviously this is not considered a דבר חשוב and is not considered one of the משמשים of עבודה זרה. Then the

גמרא continues, כי אתא עולא, when עולא came from ארץ ישראל, יתיב אבימוסתא פגימתא, so he sat on a damaged pedestal. אמר ליה רב יהודה לעולא, so רב יהודה said to עולא, והא רב ושמואל דאמרי תרווייהו, didn't רב and שמואל both say, בימוס שנתגם אסור, that a pedestal, even if it's damaged, it's still אסור? דאפילו למאן דאמר אין עובדין לשברים, even according to the opinion that says that the גוים do not worship broken pieces of an עבודה זרה, so you might think the same thing here, that even though this is a pedestal of עבודה זרה, וממילא it should be אסור, but since it broke, וממילא the גוים stopped worshipping it, and it is בטל, but it's not so, because even according to the one that holds that the גוים do not worship broken pieces of עבודה זרה, הני מילי עבודת כוכבים, that the עבודה זרה itself, דזילא בה מילתא למיפלח לשברים, that it is a disgrace for them to worship if it is broken. אבל האי, but the case of a pedestal, לא איכפת ליה, the גוי doesn't care if it's broken, and ממילא he will continue putting the עבודה זרה on it, because it's not the עבודה זרה itself, it's only a stand, a pedestal for עבודה זרה. And therefore, even a broken בימוס is אסור. So how could you sit on this damaged בימוס? אמר ליה, so he said to him: מאן יהיב לן מעפרא דרב ושמואל, who could give us from the sand, the dust of רב and שמואל, ומליין עיינין, and we'll fill the eyes? And there are two ways to learn this. You can learn that he meant to say that he regrets what he did because it was against רב and שמואל, or you could say that he meant that רב and שמואל were wrong. Why? Because דרבי יוחנן וריש לקיש דאמרי תרווייהו, because רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש both hold: בימוס שנפגם מותר, that a pedestal that was damaged is מותר. And he goes on saying even more: אפילו למאן דאמר עובדין לשברים, and even according to the one that holds that the גוים do worship the broken pieces of עבודה זרה, that הני מילי עבודה זרה, this is only the עבודה זרה itself, because כיוון דפולחא, since it was worshipped, it's an עבודה זרה, זילא בה מילתא לביטולה, so it's a disgrace for him to be מבטל it. So therefore, even if it's broken, he still considers it as an עבודה זרה. אבל הני, but these, meaning only the pedestals, שקלי להאי, if it breaks they take away this one, ומייתי בימוס אחריני, and they bring a different בימוס. It is not a disgrace to change the בימוס, and therefore, as soon as it breaks they change it. And therefore, if it's broken, we assume that the גוי would not use it, and was מבטל it, and therefore, it is מותר. Then the גמרא says: תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן וריש לקיש, we learn in a ברייתא to support the view of רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש. It says in the ברייתא: בימוס שנפגם מותר, a בימוס that was damaged is מותר, מזבח שנפגם אסור, but a מזבח, an altar, on which you would bring קרבנות, sacrifices to the עבודה זרה, that is אסור even if it's damaged, עד שינתץ רובו, unless, until you demolish the majority of it. But otherwise, even if it's broken, it's still אסור. And the גמרא says: היכי דמי בימוס, היכי דמי מזבח? How do you know which thing is a בימוס and which one is a מזבח? אמר רבי יעקב בר אידי אמר רבי יוחנן, said רבי יעקב בר אידי said in the name of רבי יוחנן: בימוס אבן אחת, a בימוס was made of one stone, and מזבח אבנים הרבה, a מזבח, by them, was made of many stones. So therefore, if you see that it's one stone and it's damaged, then it's מותר, because you know it's a בימוס that's damaged. If you see it's made of many stones and it's damaged, it's still אסור because you know this is a מזבח. אמר חזקיה, and חזקיה said: מאי קרא? What is the פסוק? Which פסוק teaches us this דין that only if it's destroyed in the majority, that's when it's מותר? So he says, the פסוק says in ישעיה, קפיטל כ"ז, פסוק ט', it says there that how will השם forgive the עבירות of the יידן? It says there: בשומו כל אבני מזבח כאבני גיר מנופצות, when you will make all the stones of the מזבח, meaning the מזבח for עבודה זרה, you will make like chalk stones, that chalk stones that are crushed, לא יקומו אשרים וחמנים, and the אשרים, the עבודה זרה which are אשרים and the sun images, then will not rise. So we דרש from this פסוק: אי איכא כאבני גיר מנופצות, if what you do is that they're like chalk stones that are crushed, לא יקומון אשרים וחמנים, then the אשרים וחמנים, the עבודה זרה, will not rise, which means that it's not an עבודה זרה anymore. But אי לאו, if it's not, יקומון, then they could rise, which means as long as it's not crushed like chalk stones, then it still could rise, it's still an עבודה זרה. So from here we know that a מזבח for עבודה זרה has to be destroyed completely. Then the גמרא continues: תנא, we learned in a ברייתא: נעבד, שלו אסור ושל חבירו מותר. The דין is that if you worship an animal, so even though it doesn't become an עבודה זרה that it should be אסור בהנאה, because it's a live animal, but nevertheless, it is אסור to be brought as a קרבן on the מזבח to השם. So it says in this ברייתא that if he worshipped his own animal, then it becomes אסור as a קרבן, but של חבירו, if he took someone else's animal and he worshipped it, מותר, it's מותר. And the reason is, as we know from before, because אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, a person cannot אסר something that's not his, and since this animal is not his, he cannot make it אסור by worshipping it to the מזבח. So the גמרא asks: ורמינהי, I will ask you a question: we learned: ואיזהו נעבד? What is considered נעבד? What is considered an animal that is worshipped in order to be אסור as a קרבן? כל שעובדין אותו, as long as they worshipped it, בין בשוגג בין במזיד, whether it was done unintentionally or intentionally, בין באונס ובין ברצון, whether it was done by force or it was done willingly. In all these cases, as long as it was done, it is אסור for the מזבח. And רש״י says that the truth is מזיד and רצון is the same thing. מזיד means intentionally, and רצון means willingly, really it's the same thing. But since שוגג and אונס are two separate things, שוגג means unintentionally and אונס means by force, so therefore, we write these two things also, because the opposite of שוגג is מזיד, and the opposite of אונס is רצון. Anyway, the גמרא says this ברייתא said that also if it was worshipped באונס, by force, it is אסור to be a קרבן. האי אונס היכי דמי? This force, how is it? What do we mean that it was force? לאו, don't you think, כגון, for instance, דאנס בהמת חבירו, that if he took a בהמה of his friend, and he forced it, והשתחוה לה, and he bowed down to it, and we say that this is considered נעבד, so this contradicts what we said before, that if you worship someone else's בהמה, it doesn't become אסור to the מזבח. אמר רבא בר חמא, רבא בר חמא answers, לא, no, this is not what אונס means. כגון, it means, for instance, שאנסוהו עובדי כוכבים, that גוים forced the Yid, והשתחוה לבהמתו דידיה, and he bowed down to his own בהמה. So לפועל it was done to his own בהמה. Force means he was forced to do it to his own בהמה. That's when the בהמה is אסור to the מזבח as נעבד. But if it would be done to someone else's בהמה, it wouldn't become אסור. But then מתקיף לה רב זירא, רב זירא asks a question: How can you say that it's אסור to the מזבח if it was worshipped by its owner by force, but אונס רחמנא פטריה, we know that if something was done by force, the תורה makes him פטור, he is פטור from any punishment, and therefore the דין should be that the בהמה should not be אסור if it was done by force, דכתיב, because the תורה says, ולנערה לא תעשה דבר, it says, if a woman was forced to an עבירה, and she was a married woman, so it says, the man who forced her has to get killed, but the girl, nothing should be done to her, and the reason is because it was done by force. So the same thing here also, if it was done by force, the בהמה should not be אסור. אלא אמר רבא, so therefore רבא said, and he answered it, through giving an introduction. הכל היה בכלל לא תעבדם, on one hand, everything is included in the words לא תעבדם, לא תעבדם means do not worship them. And since the פסוק says generally לא תעבדם, that means under any condition, in any way that it was done, you're not allowed to do it, which means that if you worshipped עבודה זרה in any way, it has a דין of עבודה זרה. But כשפרט לך הכתוב וחי בהם, but when the תורה specified and says, וחי בהם, you should live with them, and this refers to מצות, that a person should live with doing מצות, ולא שימות בהם, but should not die with them, which means that if a person could not perform a מצוה or had to do an עבירה because he was forced, otherwise he would die, then he doesn't have to perform the מצוה. יצא אונס, this פסוק excludes אונס, if it was done by force, it is not included in the עבירה. But הדר כתב רחמנא, but then again the פסוק writes, ולא תחללו את שם קדשי, that you should not desecrate My holy name, so this comes to say, דאפילו באונס, that even if it was done by force, as long as the חילול השם was done, it makes no difference how, it is a חילול השם, this includes אונס also. So here it comes out a contradiction: from the first and the last פסוק that he brings, it seems that אונס is included; from the middle פסוק where it says וחי בהם, it seems like we exclude אונס. How can it, how is it? And the answer is, הא בצנעא, הא בפרהסיא, one is talking if it was done privately, and the other one if it was done in public, which means if it was done privately and it was done באונס, by force, it's excluded; if it was done in public, even if it was done by force, it's still not excluded, but it's included. So this is how he answers the question, that באמת the ברייתא where it says that if it was done by force, it has a דין of נעבד, this is talking about his own בהמה. I, we asked that if it was done by force, it shouldn't become אסור, that case is speaking when he did it in public, and in public it is אסור, had he done it in private, it takke wouldn't become אסור because it was done באונס, but if it was done in public, then it does become אסור. אמרו ליה רבנן לרבא, the רבנן said to רבא, תניא דמסייע לך, we learned in a ברייתא that will support your view. It says in a ברייתא, בימוסיאות של עובדי כוכבים, the pedestals of the גוים, בשעת הגזירה, in the time of the גזירה, the time of persecution, where the גוים would force Yidden to worship עבודה זרה, so אף על פי שהגזירה בטלה, so even after the גזירה is בטל, אותם בימוסיאות לא בטלו, but those pedestals are not בטל and they are אסור. And even though the Jews worshipped the עבודה זרה that were on the pedestals באונס, by force, nevertheless it is not בטל. Even though you might ask that since it was done by force, it shouldn't have become an עבודה זרה so it shouldn't be אסור, but nevertheless we say it's אסור, the reason must be because since it was done in public, because of those times it used to be done in public, it is אסור even if it's done באונס. This is a ראיה to רבא that if it's done באונס, but if it's done in public, it makes it אסור as עבודה זרה. אמר להו, so he said to them, so רבא said to them, אי משום הא לא תסייען, if this is what you're trying to prove, we have no no proof from here, because אימא I could say ישראל מומר הוה, there was a ישראל, a ייד, a מומר amongst them ופלח לה ברצון, and he worshipped it ברצון. Since they made so many people worship it, so we suspect maybe amongst so many people there was one person who did it willingly. And since he did it willingly, it becomes אסור, and therefore it remains אסור even later on also. רב אשי אמר, רב אשי says even more, לא תימא, don't say אימור, that I say, in other words, maybe there was a ייד amongst them who did it willingly, אלא ודאי ישראל מומר הוה ופלח לה ברצון. Definitely, there must have been one ישראל מומר who worshipped it willingly, because of so many people, it is impossible that you shouldn't have one that did it willingly. And since we are sure that a ייד worshipped it willingly, and the עבודה זרה of a ייד cannot become בטל, and therefore this pedestal remains אסור forever. חזקיה אמר, חזקיה comes to answer the question he asked before differently. That when it says in that ברייתא that if you worship the בהמה באונס, it still has a דין of נעבד. And we asked before that אונס must mean that you force someone else's בהמה to be worshipped. And nevertheless, it is אסור, and this was a contradiction to the דין that we said before, that if you worship someone else's בהמה, it doesn't become אסור. So חזקיה says, what do we mean that he worshipped someone else's בהמה באונס, he forced that בהמה, כגון שניסך לעבודת כוכבים יין על קרניה. It doesn't mean that he just bowed down to it, but it means that he poured wine on its horns for the עבודה זרה. When do we say this rule, אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, a person cannot אסר someone else's things, only if he did it through מחשבה. The only thing he did to it to make it אסור was through a מחשבה, through a thought. For instance, he bowed down to it, which means he didn't touch the בהמה, he didn't do anything to the בהמה, he stood in front of it and bowed down to it. So the reason it should become אסור is because of his מחשבה, of his thought that he thought to make that into עבודה זרה. So there we say, if it's someone else's object, his thought cannot have an effect, and therefore it is not אסור. But if he worshipped it through doing an act with it, so then, even if it's not his, it becomes אסור. So that's the פשט, that when it says that if you worshipped it באונס and we said before it means that you forced someone else's בהמה to be worshipped, it means that you did an act to it, you poured wine on its horns. And therefore it is אסור even if it was someone else's. מתקיף לה רב אדא בר אהבה, but רב אדא בר אהבה asked a question, האי נעבד הוא? How can you call this נעבד? If you poured wine on its horns for an עבודה זרה, you call this בהמה a נעבד, which means that the בהמה itself is worshipped? It is not true, because האי בימוס בעלמא הוא דשוויה, all he did, he made this בהמה into a pedestal. The case is that he poured wine on the בהמה for an עבודה זרה, which means the בהמה was standing in front of an עבודה זרה, he wanted to worship that עבודה זרה, so he poured wine to the עבודה זרה on top of the בהמה. So he didn't worship the בהמה, he worshipped the עבודה זרה through doing something to the בהמה. So how can we say that this is the פשט, that the בהמה becomes a נעבד through this, the בהמה becomes an object that was worshipped when actually he didn't worship it? And because of that, not only would it not be נעבד, it wouldn't even have a דין of משמשי עבודה זרה. It wouldn't even have a דין of an object that was used for עבודה זרה, even though he did use it as a pedestal for his pouring of the wine for עבודה זרה. And still it wouldn't even be that. Why? Because the דין is, as we know, that a בעל חי, a live animal, cannot become משמשי עבודה זרה. So therefore it wouldn't have anything, it would be כולו מותר. It's not an עבודה זרה itself, and it's not even משמשי עבודה זרה, so it would be מותר. So we can't say that that's the פשט in the ברייתא that it's אסור. אלא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה, so therefore רב אדא בר אהבה said that the case is כגון שניסך לה יין בין קרניה, that he poured to it wine between its horns, דעבד בה מעשה, that he did a מעשה, which means he wanted to worship the בהמה itself. The way he worshipped it was by pouring wine between its horns. So here he did want to worship it, so it's נעבד. And even though it's not his, but since he poured wine, he did a מעשה to it, so in that case he could אסר it even though it is not his. And the גמרא continues, וכי הא, this is similar to when עולא came, אמר רבי יוחנן, he said in the name of רבי יוחנן, אף על פי שאמרו, that even though the חכמים said המשתחוה לבהמת חבירו לא אסרה, that if someone bows down to a בהמה of his friend, he didn't

make it אסור, because it's not his, עשה בה מעשה, אסרה, but he does have an act to it, he did make it אסור. Because even though a person cannot אסר someone else's things, but with a מעשה you could אסר it. And that's why in this case, if he poured wine in the form of worshipping it, then he makes it אסור even though it's not his. The גמרא continues, אמר להו רב נחמן, רב נחמן said to them, פוקו, go out, ואמרו ליה לעולא, tell עולא כבר תרגמה רב הונא לשמעתך בבבל, that רב הונא already said your דין in בבל, because we said before that this דין was said by עולא when he came, meaning when he came from ארץ ישראל to בבל, he brought, so to speak, with him a דין from ארץ ישראל. רב נחמן said, go out and tell him that this was already explained by רב הונא in בבל. דאמר רב הונא, because רב הונא said, היתה בהמת חבירו רבוצה בפני עבודת כוכבים, if the בהמה of his friend was lying in front of עבודה זרה, כיון ששחט בה סימן אחד אסרה, as soon as he shechts, he slaughters, one סימן, it is already אסור. The

דין is, for שחיטה, you have to have two סימנים. A בהמה has two סימנים: one is the קנה, one is the ושט, which is the windpipe and the food pipe. And when you shecht both, that's when it's געשאכטן. But that's only concerning the דין of שחיטה. But if you shecht even one with the intentions of doing this for עבודה זרה, it becomes also אסור already for עבודה זרה, because you did an act for an עבודה זרה, even though it's not a complete שחיטה. What he's saying here is, if you did this to your friend's בהמה, so we also say that as soon as you shechted one סימן, you made it אסור. Even though it's not your בהמה, and we know a person cannot אסר someone else's object, but in this case, since he did an act to the בהמה, he makes it אסור even though it's not his object. So we see that רב הונא already said the same דין that עולא had brought from ארץ ישראל in the name of ר' יוחנן. But then the גמרא asks, מנלן דאסרה? But how do we טאקע know that it's אסור? That if you do an act to אסר someone else's object, it does become אסור? אילימא, if you're going to say מכהנים, you learn it out from the דין of the כהנים, that we find in יחזקאל, that those כהנים that were forced by their kings, by the Jewish kings, to become priests to עבודה זרה, were not allowed later on to do the עבודה in the בית המקדש for ה'. So we see here, that even though that the kings, they were the ones that forced them to do the עבודה זרה, nevertheless, it made the כהנים אסור, that now they cannot do the עבודה to ה' in the בית המקדש. So from here we see the same thing concerning מזבח, that if you force someone else's בהמה by doing an act of עבודה זרה, it becomes אסור as a קרבן. So he says you can't learn it out from there, because דילמא, maybe שאני כהנים, כהנים are different, דבני דעה נינהו, they have דעת, they have שכל. And therefore, when they were forced to become priests of עבודה זרה, they had a choice, they could have run away. And since they didn't, it is as if they did this on their own, and therefore they became אסור. So it's not because someone else did something to them, they became אסור; they became אסור because of themselves. But concerning the בהמה, which doesn't have choice to run away, maybe even if an act was done to it, but as long as it was done to someone else's בהמה, maybe it doesn't become אסור. אלא, the גמרא says, from where should we know it?

מאבני מזבח, from the stones of the מזבח. Because we know, as we learned earlier in the גמרא, that when the חשמונאים came to the בית המקדש, they took the stones of the מזבח that were disgraced by the גוים through עבודה זרה, and they hid them. They didn't do anything with them. Now the question is, how could the גוים have spoiled, have caused these stones of the מזבח to become אסור? They were הקדש, they belonged to the בית המקדש. And the כלל is, a person cannot אסר something that's not his. So how could they have אסר the stones of the מזבח? And the reason we must say is, because they did a מעשה to it, they did something to it. And when you do a מעשה, even though it's somebody else's object, you could אסר it. So from there we see that you could אסר someone else's object through a מעשה, and it would become אסור to the מזבח. Just like the stones of the מזבח became אסור, so the בהמה that was worshipped by somebody else through a מעשה would also become אסור to the מזבח. But the גמרא says there's no ראיה, ודילמא, maybe כדירב פפא, maybe this is a special דין like רב פפא said, because we learned earlier in דף נ"ב עמוד ב', that רב פפא said that they found a פסוק that indicated that these stones are אסור. The פסוק itself says that ובאו פריצים וחללוה, that the פריצים came and they were מחלל it, they desecrated it. From there we learn out that when the פריצים came in, they took these stones out from הקדש and they became חולין. Now as soon as they became חולין, it doesn't belong to הקדש anymore, it's הפקר. When they took it, they were זוכה מן ההפקר, they were קונה, they acquired it from הפקר, so it became theirs. And that is the reason they were able to אסר it, because it was theirs. So we have no ראיה from here that if something is not the person's, he still could אסר it למזבח through doing an act. אלא, so from where do we know it? The גמרא says, מכלים. We know it

from the כלים of the בית המקדש. דכתיב, because the פסוק says, the פסוק in דברי הימים ב', קפיטל כ"ח, that כל הכלים אשר הזניח המלך אחז במלכותו במעלו הכנו והקדשנו, which means that we're saying that all the כלים from the בית המקדש that the king אחז in his reign cast away when he trans-trespassed, when he did עבירה, so the פסוק says, we have prepared and sanctified. ואמר מר, and we learned earlier, what does that mean? הכנו שגנזנו, prepared means we hid them, והקדשנו, and we sanctified means שהקדשנו אחרים תחתיהם, that we sanctified others instead of them. That means that the כלים that were taken away, they couldn't use them anymore, they have to get new כלים. But the question is why couldn't they do it, והא אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, but a person cannot אסר something that's not his. So how could they have אסר these כלים, when these כלים belonged to the בית המקדש, so it didn't belong to those people who desecrated it? אלא therefore we must say, כיון דעבדו בה מעשה, since they did a מעשה to it, איתסרו, it became אסור to them, and they couldn't use it in the בית המקדש anymore. And חזקיה made a גזירה that no one else should use it either. And that's why they put them away. So just like over there we say, even though it wasn't theirs, nevertheless, since they did a מעשה to it, they were able to אסר it, and it was אסור for the בית המקדש, הכא נמי the same דין is also in this case. If someone does a מעשה to someone else's בהמה, even though it's not his, כיון שעשה בה מעשה אסרה, as soon as he does a מעשה to it, he אסר it. And the גמרא continues, כי

אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן, when רב דימי came from ארץ ישראל, he said in the name of רבי יוחנן, אף על פי שאמרו, even though they said, meaning the חכמים said that המשתחוה לקרקע עולם לא אסרה, someone bows down to a piece of ground, he doesn't make it אסור, still, if חפר בה בורות שיחין ומערות, if he dug in the ground wells, pits or caves, and he did this for the sake of עבודה זרה, אסרה, he did make it אסור. And this is not only that it's אסור for the מזבח, for השם, but it's also אסור להדיוט, אסור for an ordinary person. In other words, it becomes עבודה זרה. But bowing down to the ground, you don't make it into עבודה זרה. But if you dig a hole in it for the sake of עבודה זרה, you do make it עבודה זרה. And also, כי אתא רב שמואל בר רב יהודה אמר רבי יוחנן, when רב שמואל בר רב יהודה came, he said in the name of רבי יוחנן, that אף על פי שאמרו, even though the חכמים said, המשתחוה לבעלי חיים לא אסרן, if someone bows down to a live animal, he doesn't make it אסור, עשאן חליפין לעבודת כוכבים, אסרן, but if he made a live animal an exchange for עבודה זרה, he does make it אסור. For instance, he had an עבודה זרה, and he exchanged the עבודה זרה for an animal, so now, the איסור of עבודה זרה takes effect on the animal, and now the animal is אסור as עבודה זרה. The גמרא continues, כי אתא רבין, when רבין came, אמר, he said, פליגו בה רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי ורבנן, that in connection to this דין that we said, that if you exchange an animal for עבודה זרה, the animal gets the דין of עבודה זרה too, concerning this דין,

there is a מחלוקת between רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי and the רבנן. חד אמר, one of them says, חליפין אסורין, חליפי חליפין מותרין, that the exchange for עבודה זרה is אסור, but the exchange for the exchange is מותר. For instance, if that object that you exchanged for the עבודה זרה was now exchanged for a third thing, so the third thing is מותר. It's only the direct exchange for the עבודה זרה which is אסור, but the exchange of the exchange, that is מותר. But חד אמר, one of them says, אפילו חליפי חליפין נמי אסורין, that even the exchange of the exchange is also אסור. In other words, the ענין of עבודה זרה continues, every time you exchange something that was exchanged for עבודה זרה, also gets the דין of עבודה זרה. The גמרא explains, מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר חליפי חליפין אסורין? What is the reason of the one that holds that the exchange of the exchange is אסור? The answer is because אמר קרא, because the פסוק says, it's a פסוק in פרשת עקב, קפיטל ז, פסוק כו, it says והיית חרם כמוהו. Here the פסוק speaks about עבודה זרה, and the פסוק says, ולא תביא תועבה אל ביתך, do not bring this disgusting thing into your house, והיית חרם כמוהו, and you will be חרם like it. In this case חרם would mean the עבודה זרה. So the פסוק is saying that you will be עבודה זרה like it. So from this פסוק we דרש, כל שאתה מחיה הימנו הרי הוא כמוהו. Anything that you make from it is like it. He דרש the פסוק, the word והיית, that you will be, that whatever will be from it, is like it. Which means that anything that comes in connection to the עבודה זרה, whether it's an exchange or an exchange of the exchange, anything that is continued from the עבודה זרה, is like it, has the דין of עבודה זרה. ואידך, so what will the other opinion do? How will he דרש this פסוק? And the גמרא said he says, אמר קרא, the פסוק says, הוא. In the same פסוק, the פסוק finishes off with the words כי חרם הוא, because he is חרם, so we דרש הוא, ולא חליפי חליפין, that he is חרם, but not the exchange of the exchange. The word הוא comes to exclude the exchange of the exchange, it comes to limit how far the effect of the עבודה זרה will go. ואידך, so what will the other opinion that holds that the exchange of the exchange is אסור, what would he say because of הוא? ההוא מיבעי ליה למעוטי ערלה וכלאי הכרם, that that הוא doesn't come to teach us this דין, that the חליפי חליפין of עבודה זרה is מותר. It comes to teach us a different דין. It comes to exclude the דין of ערלה and כלאי הכרם. ערלה is when you plant a tree, so the first three years, then the fruit that grow is ערלה. And that fruit is אסור בהנאה. Not only can't you eat it, you also are not allowed to have any use from it. And also כלאי הכרם, and if you mix the vine with other kinds of plants, so then whatever grows out is also אסור בהנאה, you can't have any use from it. So this פסוק, הוא comes to tell us, to exclude the דין of ערלה וכלאי הכרם, שאם מכרן, that if you sold them, וקידש בדמיהן, and you were מקדש a woman with their money, מקודשת, she is מקודשת. In other words, the פסוק is trying to say that only concerning עבודה זרה, the דין is that whatever you exchange for the עבודה זרה also has the דין of עבודה זרה and is אסור בהנאה. But other things which are אסור בהנאה, if you exchange it for something else, the other thing is not אסור בהנאה. And this is the way they דרשנ'ד the word הוא. Only it is חרם, meaning only in this case, that is עבודה זרה, that's where we say the דין that it continues the חרם, that even if you exchange it, it also has the דין of עבודה זרה. But other things which are similar, meaning other things which are אסור בהנאה, like ערלה וכלאי הכרם, the money that is exchanged, or anything that's exchanged for the כלאי הכרם or for the ערלה, doesn't get the דין of ערלה וכלאי הכרם, and it is מותר בהנאה. Now in truth, the person himself who actually exchanged the ערלה or כלאי הכרם for the money, is not allowed to use the money. Because after all, if he uses the money, that means that he's having use of the ערלה וכלאי הכרם, since this money came to him as an exchange for the ערלה, so by having use of this money, that means that he's having הנאה from the ערלה. So the man himself cannot have any הנאה from it, but it's not because the money itself has the דין of ערלה. It is because the person who exchanged it, if he'll have הנאה from the money, he will have הנאה from the ערלה that was exchanged. But the money itself is not ערלה, it's not a דין of ערלה. And therefore, if he used the money to be מקדש an אשה, because the דין is that when you want to marry a woman, one of the three ways you're able to be מקדש her is through כסף, through giving her money or anything which has a value of money. So now if the person who got this money through the exchange of ערלה וכלאי הכרם will use this money or this object to be מקדש an אשה, the woman would be מקודשת. Because after all, he himself doesn't have הנאה from the money. The woman that gets the money, she will not be having הנאה from ערלה, because she didn't exchange it for ערלה. And since the money itself that was exchanged for the ערלה doesn't have a דין of ערלה, so therefore she is מקודשת. Because if you would give her something which has no value, because it is אסור בהנאה, because the thing itself is not allowed to be used for anything, then she wouldn't be מקודשת. Because since the money or the object is אסור בהנאה, forbidden to have any use from it, so it has no value, so that means you were מקדש her with something that has no value. But in this case, since the money itself is not אסור בהנאה, the only thing is that the man can't use it because then he will be having הנאה from ערלה, but the woman, לגבי her, she will not be having הנאה from ערלה if she uses it. So therefore, concerning her, we do consider it that it has a value, and therefore if he if he used this money to be מקדש an אשה, she is מקודשת. And this is what we learn out from the פסוק, הוא, that only the עבודה זרה, the דין is that it affects its exchange. But other איסורי הנאה, like ערלה וכלאי הכרם, the ערלה and the כלאי הכרם doesn't affect the exchange. The exchange itself does not become ערלה וכלאי הכרם, and therefore the דין would be that if he uses this to be מקדש an אשה, she is מקודשת. If he uses this for other things, then he's not allowed, because then he would be having הנאה from ערלה. But if he uses it to be מקדש an אשה, the woman is מקודשת, because the money itself, which was exchanged for ערלה, doesn't get the דין of ערלה. ואידך, now the question is on the other one, the one that used the word הוא to teach us that the חליפי חליפין, the exchange of the exchange of the עבודה זרה is not אסור, so he used up the word הוא, from where does he know this דין that כלאי הכרם and ערלה does not take effect on the exchange, and therefore if he uses it to be מקדש an אשה, she is מקודשת? And the גמרא answers, לא צריכא למעוטי. He doesn't need a special פסוק to exclude this. He says, דהוו להו עבודת כוכבים ושביעית שני כתובים הבאים כאחד. He holds that עבודה זרה and the דין of שביעית of שמיטה are considered two פסוקים that come together. וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין. And whenever you have two פסוקים that teaches the same thing and go together, this automatically means that this does not teach this דין for any place else. The rule is that Whenever we have a דין in one case, so we don't say that this דין is only in this specific case, unless it happens to be a חידוש, some special דין. But normally, we don't say that this דין is only in this one case, but we say that this דין will also be in any other similar case where this דין is able to apply. But if the same דין is written in the תורה in two cases, then automatically we say that this itself teaches us that this דין does not apply anywhere else, because if this דין would apply in all places that it's able to apply, then the תורה would have written this דין only in one place, and automatically we would have known it in all places, including that second place. Why did the תורה have to mention the דין specifically in that second place also? Obviously, the תורה is trying to tell us that if I wouldn't have told you the דין in the second place, you wouldn't have known it. Now, why wouldn't I have known it? After all, if the דין would be written in the first place, we would have known it in the second place too. Obviously, the תורה here wants us to know that this דין does not apply in all similar places, it only applies where it's written. So therefore,

whenever we have the same דין written in two cases, so then we say that this teaches us that this דין does not apply anywhere else but in these two places. And that's called שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, if you have two פסוקים that come together, meaning the two פסוקים that teach us the same דין, so the rule is אין מלמדין, so then it doesn't teach us this דין anywhere else. On the contrary, we know that all over this דין does not apply. And the same thing here also. He says that to know that this דין that it has an effect on חליפין does not apply to other איסורי הנאה, we don't need a special פסוק for that, because that's self-understood from the fact that we find in the תורה this דין concerning עבודה זרה and concerning שביעית, concerning שמיטה. Now, if the תורה would want that this דין should apply to all other איסורים also, the תורה would have written it only in one place and we would know it applies all over. Since the תורה wrote this דין by עבודה זרה and by שמיטה, automatically the תורה is trying to tell us clearly that this דין only applies to עבודה זרה and to שמיטה. Only over there it affects the exchange also. So automatically, we know that any other place of איסור הנאה, it does not affect the exchange. Now, where do we find that the תורה tells us this דין in these two places? עבודת כוכבים כדאמרן, the דין of עבודה זרה is as we said before, because the פסוק says, והיית חרם כמוהו, you will be חרם like it, and we learned out that anything that comes from it is חרם like it. So this is the פסוק concerning עבודה זרה. שביעית, where do we find the פסוק by שמיטה that if you have fruit that grew in שמיטה, and there are special דינים that apply to this fruit, so the פסוק tells us that if you exchange this fruit for something else, so then the דין of שמיטה, the special דינים that apply to שמיטה, would also now apply to that exchange, where does the תורה say that? You see, because the פסוק says, כי יובל היא קדש תהיה לכם. It's a פסוק in פרשת בהר, קפיטל כ\"ה, פסוק י\"ב, and there the פסוק speaks about יובל. And on the year of יובל, which is the 50th year, has the same דין as שמיטה, because just like on שמיטה, you're not allowed to work on the field and anything that grows out has a special דין, so, too, on יובל, you're not allowed to work in the field and anything that grows out has a special דין. So concerning יובל, which is the same דין as שמיטה, the תורה says, כי יובל היא קדש תהיה לכם, because it is יובל, it should be holy to you. And the פסוק continues there, מן השדה תאכלו את תבואתה, from the field you can eat the תבואה. But here, the פסוק compares יובל with קודש. מה קודש תופס את דמיו, just like קודש, now קודש means הקדש. If a person would donate an object to הקדש, so now that object belongs to הקדש, so this object is תופס את דמיו, grabs onto its money, which means that if הקדש will sell that object, so now the money that will be paid for that object, the money becomes הקדש. So the פסוק is saying that just like קודש, if you exchange the קודש for money, so the money grabs, gets the דין of קודש, ואסור, and the money is אסור, אף שביעית, so too שמיטה, or in this case it would be יובל, but it's the same דין, תופסת את דמיה, ואסורה, will grab onto the money and it's אסור. That if you take fruit of יובל or שמיטה and you exchange it for

money, so now the money gets the דין of the יובל or שמיטה. So here we have a פסוק concerning שמיטה that the money is תופס the קדושה of שביעית, which means that the קדושה of the פירות of שביעית is transferred into the money. So now we have two פסוקים for this דין. By עבודה זרה, we say that the דין of עבודה זרה is transferred into the money that exchanged for it. By שביעית, the תורה says that the דין of שביעית is transferred into the money. So they're שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, they're two פסוקים that teach the same דין, so automatically we know that only in this case it's true, but in all other cases, all other איסורים, it is not תופס the money, and therefore we don't need a special פסוק for it, but we know it from this. But then the גמרא asks concerning שמיטה: we said that how do we know that שביעית is תופס the money? From the פסוק קדש תהיה לכם that we compare יובל to קודש. אי מה קודש תופס את דמיו ויוצא לחולין, אף שביעית תופסת את דמיה ויוצא לחולין. So then let's compare it to קודש in every way. By קודש the דין is that when you have an object which is הקדש, and it's exchanged for money, הקדש, let's say, sells it, so now the money becomes הקדש, but the object that used to be הקדש becomes חולין, it's not הקדש anymore. So if we compare שביעית to הקדש, let's say by שביעית the same thing: that if you have פירות of שביעית, and you exchange it for money, so now the money gets the קדושה of שביעית, but the פירות should now become חולין and shouldn't be שביעית anymore. So maybe that is the דין. But the פסוק says, תלמוד לומר, תהיה, the פסוק says, קודש תהיה לכם, it should be to you, בהויתה תהא, that means that it stays the way it is. So it comes out that the פסוק is telling us it's not like הקדש, that by הקדש the דין is that the object of הקדש is חולין after you exchange it, but by שביעית, the פירות that were originally שביעית always remain שביעית. But then the question is, הא כיצד? How could it be? On one hand, we say that it's like קודש, which means that the קדושה is transferred into the money, on the other hand, we say that the קדושה does not leave the original פירות שביעית. So it comes out that it's not transferred from the פירות שביעית into the money. The גמרא says the

פשט is like this: לקח בפירות שביעית בשר, let's say, if he bought with the פירות of שביעית, meat, which means he exchanged the fruit of שביעית for meat, אלו ואלו מתבערין בשביעית. So both of them have the דין of ביעור of שביעית, which means that by שביעית, one of the דינים concerning the פירות of שביעית that it must be eaten before a certain time, and that is called the זמן הביעור. The דין is that when the time comes that there is no more fruit left in the field, then even if you have fruit of שביעית in your house, you can't eat anymore. That's one of the דינים, and that's called being מתבערין. So if you buy meat with the פירות of שביעית, so the פירות of שביעית remain שביעית, the meat that was exchanged for the פירות שביעית also have a דין of שביעית, and both of them must be eaten in the time before the זמן הביעור. Now if לקח בבשר דגים, now if he took the meat that was exchanged for the פירות שביעית, and now you exchange that for fish, יצא בשר נכנסו דגים, now the meat is not שביעית anymore. Now instead of the meat, the fish is the דין of שביעית, because the fish was exchanged for the meat. In other words, the first object, the פירות שביעית themselves always remain שביעית. Now afterwards, whatever is exchanged gets the דין of שביעית, and the one that it was exchanged for, providing that it was not the first פירות שביעית, is not שביעית anymore. So therefore, if you exchange the פירות שביעית for meat, so the פירות שביעית is שביעית, the meat also has a דין of שביעית. If you then exchange the meat for fish, so now the fish become שביעית, but the meat is not שביעית anymore. If you exchange בדגים יין, now for the fish you got wine, יצאו דגים, now the fish is not שביעית anymore, they go out of the דין of שביעית, נכנס יין, so wine comes in and takes the place of שביעית. ביין שמן, now if you exchange for the wine, oil, יצא יין, the wine goes out of the דין of שביעית, ונכנס שמן, now the oil comes in. הא כיצד? What do we mean here? אחרון אחרון נתפס בשביעית, the

later one, as you go further, so always the last one gets the דין of שביעית. ופרי עצמו אסור, but the פרי of שביעית itself is always אסור. So if you exchange it up to 10 times, so the first one is אסור, and the last one is אסור. But על כל פנים we see from here, the פסוק teaches us the דין by שביעית that it does have an effect on its exchange, so it comes out, as we said before, that עבודה זרה and שביעית are two פסוקים that teach the same דין. So we know from here that it's only in these two cases, not in any other case, not by ערלה וכלאי הכרם, and therefore we don't need a special פסוק to teach us that by ערלה וכלאי הכרם, it doesn't have an effect on its exchange, because we know it from this. But then the גמרא asks, ואידך, but the other one that did learn out from the פסוק הוא, that by ערלה וכלאי הכרם it doesn't have an effect on its exchange, why did he need that פסוק? Why couldn't he learn it out from the same thing as we're saying now, from the fact that עבודה זרה and שביעית are שני כתובים הבאים כאחד? And the גמרא answers: קסבר, he holds, שני כתובים הבאים כאחד מלמדין, that even when the תורה tells us the same דין in two places, it still comes to teach us the same דין in all other places. Because we know in the גמרא there is a מחלוקת whether we say this rule. One opinion says that when the תורה tells us the same דין in two places, automatically it doesn't teach us the דין all over, it tells us that in other cases the דין does not apply. And another opinion says that this rule is only if we have three פסוקים הבאים כאחד, that if the תורה tells us the same דין in three places, then we know that it's only there, not other places. But if the תורה tells us the same דין in two places, it still comes to teach us. So this מאן דאמר here holds that if the תורה tells us the same דין in two places, it still comes to teach us. So normally, if we would look in the And see that the תורה tells us the דין that it has an effect on the exchange by עבודה זרה and by שביעית, we would automatically think that the same דין applies all over. That's why he needs, איצטריך, הוא למיעוטינהו. So he needs the פסוק הוא to exclude it, to tell us that it's not so, that other cases don't have this דין. For instance, ערלה and כלאי הכרם, the דין is that it doesn't have an effect on its exchange, and therefore, if he would exchange ערלה or כלאי הכרם and use the money to be מקדש an אשה, the אשה would be מקודשת. But he only knows this from the פסוק הוא, but if not for that, he wouldn't have known it from the fact that we have this דין by עבודה זרה and by שביעית. But

תוספות asks a קשיא, according to the one that does hold that עבודה זרה and שביעית are considered שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, לכאורה, why are they considered שני כתובים הבאים כאחד? Usually שני כתובים הבאים כאחד means that when both פסוקים say the same thing, and therefore the question is, why did the תורה have to write the same דין in both places? Wouldn't we know one from the other? That itself proves that the תורה wants us not to learn out from this דין to anywhere else. But לכאורה in this case it's not like that, because the דין of שביעית and the דין of עבודה זרה are different. Because by עבודה זרה we say that חליפי חליפין אסורין עד סוף כל העולם, and when we say that the חליפי חליפין are אסור, that means it's אסור forever. That means that anyone that's exchanged, even if it's exchanged for an exchange, it's also אסור, they're all אסור. But by שביעית, as the גמרא says, the first one is אסור and the last one is אסור. So when we say there that the חליפין is אסור, it means only that it takes effect on the one that's exchanged, but the one before loses the דין of שביעית. So it comes out that both of them are not the same, and therefore, especially as תוספות explains the question in קידושין, דף נ״ח עמוד א׳, so therefore, if the תורה would have written the דין by one of them, we wouldn't have known the other, because we would think that the other one has the exact same דין. In other words, if the תורה would have said the דין only by עבודה זרה, we wouldn't know the דין by שביעית, because if we would learn it out from עבודה זרה, we would think that by שביעית the דין is also that all of them are אסור. And the same thing, if the תורה would have written the דין by שביעית, and we would should learn out עבודה זרה from שביעית, we would say that עבודה זרה is also the דין that only the first and the last are אסור. So therefore, the תורה must write it in both. Now if there is a reason why the תורה must write it in both, automatically it is not שני כתובים הבאים כאחד anymore. So this is a question according to the מאן דאמר that holds that חליפי חליפין by עבודה זרה is אסור. But the question is, how could the גמרא call it according to that מאן דאמר שני כתובים הבאים כאחד? According to the מאן דאמר that holds that חליפי חליפין by עבודה זרה is מותרין, there is still a קשיא, why is this called שני כתובים הבאים כאחד? Because there is still a difference between עבודה זרה and שביעית. By שביעית the דין that it is תופס the last one, and by עבודה זרה, it's only תופס the חליפין and that's all, but the חליפי חליפין is not תופס. So in this case, according to this מאן דאמר, עבודה זרה is easier than שביעית, but nevertheless not the same as שביעית. Now as soon as it's not the same, we can't learn one from the other, and therefore the תורה has to write it in both places, and therefore it is not anymore a שני כתובים הבאים כאחד. And תוספות here in עבודה זרה does not answer the question. But תוספות in קידושין does answer the question, and תוספות says as follows, that since the תורה says כי חרם הוא, so this extra word הוא comes to teach us that עבודה זרה and שביעית are שני כתובים הבאים כאחד. From the word הוא itself we know that, because we can't say that the word הוא is used to teach us that חליפי חליפין מותרין, even though the גמרא says that this מאן דאמר holds that the הוא teaches us that חליפי חליפין is מותר. Because for that, we wouldn't need a פסוק, because since the whole דין that עבודה זרה does affect the חליפין is learned out from the פסוק והיית חרם כמוהו, so we could דרשן כמוהו that's only like it, which means only the first one, that עבודה זרה that's exchanged for something else, that something else becomes like it, but not any further. So we wouldn't need the הוא to teach us that חליפי חליפין is מותר. So what does the הוא teach us? The הוא comes to teach us that you should know that we do consider עבודה זרה and שביעית as שני כתובים הבאים כאחד. Even though they are not the same, but because of the פסוק we consider it שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, and that's why he says that they're שני כתובים הבאים כאחד and אין מלמדין, so we don't need a special פסוק to teach us that other איסורי הנאה, like ערלה and כלאי הכרם, is not תופס את דמיו, because that we would know anyway because שביעית and עבודה זרה are שני כתובים הבאים כאחד.

Concerning what we learned earlier in the גמרא, where first the גמרא said that נעבד, if it's your own, it's אסור, but if you are נעבד of your friend, which means you worshipped the בהמה of your friend, it is מותר for a קרבן. And the גמרא asks a קשיא, because we learn in a ברייתא: איזהו נעבד? כל שעובדין אותו, בין בשוגג בין במזיד, בין באונס בין ברצון. That a נעבד would be even if you worship it באונס. And the גמרא thought that אונס means that you force someone else's בהמה that you worshipped it. So the גמרא had a קשיא, here we see that if you worshipped someone else's בהמה, it is אסור. ורמי בר חמא said no, פשט is that גוים forced a איד to worship his own בהמה. רב זירא asked a קשיא: In that case, why should it be אסור? After all, אונס רחמנא פטריה. The תורה פוטרs a person from punishment if he did the עבירה באונס, as the פסוק says, ולנערה לא תעשה דבר. And if a person did an עבירה with a נערה המאורסה, and it was באונס, he forced her, so the man who did it has to get killed, but the woman, she is פטור, the פסוק says don't do anything to her because it was done באונס. So his קשיא is, how can you say if you worshiped a בהמה באונס, it does become אסור, when we know אונס רחמנא פטריה, that אונס is nothing, so it shouldn't be considered as if you worshiped it, and therefore it should not be אסור. That's what it seems is the גמרא's קשיא. תוספות asks, what kind of a קשיא does רב זירא ask? When we say אונס רחמנא פטריה, it means that the אונס is פטור from מיתה, that if he did the עבירה באונס, he's פטור from מיתה. Which means, even if he did עבודה זרה באונס, which is an עבירה that really you should have not done the עבירה even if you would have gotten killed, because this is one of those עבירות where ייהרג ואל יעבור, where you should rather get killed than do the עבירה. Nevertheless, if you did the עבירה, but since it was באונס, you are פטור. But לכתחילה, you are supposed to be מוסר yourself למיתה. And therefore, maybe the reason the בהמה is אסור because you shouldn't have worshiped it, even though בדיעבד you are פטור from מיתה. Which means that from this דין that אונס רחמנא פטריה is only a ראיה that a person will not get punished. But since he wasn't allowed to do it, the בהמה should be אסור. And תוספות brings a ראיה, because we see later on, according to רבא's סברא, רבא says that בפרהסיא you have to be מוסר נפש, and because of that, he says it's called נעבד. So we see that even though בדיעבד he would be פטור, even if he did it בפרהסיא, the way רבא says later, we understand that בדיעבד if he did the עבירה, which he shouldn't have done, he would be פטור from punishment, because after all, it's אונס. But since לכתחילה he wasn't allowed to do the עבירה even באונס, that's why we understand that the בהמה should be אסור. So the same thing here also. What is the question of רב זירא, that because אונס רחמנא פטריה, the בהמה should not be אסור, but since לכתחילה he's not allowed to do the עבירה even if it's an אונס, so that's the reason probably why the בהמה is אסור. So what is the question of רב זירא? And תוספות continues that we cannot say that according to רב זירא, when he learns אונס רחמנא פטריה, he means that you're פטור completely, and לכתחילה you shouldn't be מוסר נפש. In other words, רב זירא holds that in the case of אונס, you are allowed to do the עבירה, and therefore he asks that since you're allowed to do the עבירה, the בהמה shouldn't become אסור. But that couldn't be, because if that's what he meant, he wouldn't have brought the ראיה to this דין, אונס רחמנא פטריה, from the פסוק ולנערה לא תעשה דבר. Because from this פסוק the גמרא in סנהדרין learns out that you should be מוסר נפש, that you're not allowed to do the עבירה, it's only that if you did it you are פטור. Because in the same פסוק, after it says ולנערה לא תעשה דבר, the פסוק continues, כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש כן הדבר הזה. That just like when a person gets to his friend and murders him, so is this ענין. That's why she is פטור, because the other person did the עבירה to her, it's not her fault. But since the תורה compares this עבירה to רציחה, to murder, so we learn out that just by רציחה the דין is that you have to be מוסר נפש, you're not allowed to murder somebody even if it's a question of your own life, so too when it comes to נערה המאורסה, to עריות, you have to be מוסר נפש. So a הוכחה from this פסוק is a ראיה that you're לכתחילה not allowed to do the עבירה even if it's באונס. Now if רב זירא meant by bringing this דין of אונס רחמנא פטריה that even לכתחילה you're allowed to, he shouldn't have brought brought this פסוק of ולנערה לא תעשה דבר. To the contrary, he should have brought the פסוק וחי בהם. There's a פסוק that the גמרא brings, וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם, and this teaches us that you don't have to go on מסירות נפש. So he should have brought this פסוק, he should have said, how come this becomes אסור? After all, אונס רחמנא פטריה, because it says וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם, and from there we see that you don't have to go on מסירות נפש. And

תוספות answers in the name of the ר״י, that באמת רב זירא also holds that לכתחילה you have to be מוסר נפש, and that's why he brings the פסוק ולנערה לא תעשה דבר. But רב זירא holds that since בדיעבד you are פטור from מיתה because it was באונס, this is a good enough reason why the בהמה should not become אסור. And that's why רב זירא asks the question that how can you say that the בהמה is אסור because he was forced to bow down to it, but after all, בדיעבד he's going to be פטור from מיתה, so this is shouldn't make it אסור. אה if so, how could רבא later on say that the reason it is אסור is because בפרהסיא you have to be מוסר נפש? But we just said that according to רב זירא, even though you have to be מוסר נפש, but since you are פטור, then the בהמה should not become אסור? Because רבא does not hold like רב זירא. רבא holds that since you have to be מוסר נפש, that's a good enough reason that the בהמה should be אסור. So it comes out that רב זירא holds that even though you have to be מוסר נפש לכתחילה, but since בדיעבד you are פטור, the בהמה should not become אסור. And רבא holds that since לכתחילה you have to be מוסר נפש, that is a good enough reason for the בהמה should be אסור. That's why רבא says that since בפרהסיא you have to be מוסר נפש, here we're talking about בפרהסיא, and that's why the בהמה is אסור. Another קשיא that תוספות asked concerning רבא's statement. רבא asked a סתירה. In one פסוק it says לא תעבדם, that means in any case, even באונס. Then the פסוק says וחי בהם, that means that אונס is excluded. Then the פסוק says ולא תחללו את שם קדשי, which comes to include אונס. So כיצד? His answer was: הא בצנעא, הא בפרהסיא. בפרהסיא you have to be מוסר נפש, and בצנעא you don't. תוספות says it comes out from this גמרא לכאורה that רבא holds that באונס, בצנעא you don't have to be מוסר נפש. So it comes out that he holds that even עבודה זרה you don't have to be מוסר נפש if it's בצנעא. תוספות asked, חס ושלום that we should פסקן that by עבודה זרה the דין is יעבור ואל ייהרג, that you should do the עבירה and not get killed. And also in the שאילתות דרב אחאי in פרשת וארא, he פסקנס בפירוש like רבי יוחנן that says at the end of פרק בן סורר ומורה, סנהדרין דף ע״ד, in the name of רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק, שכל מצות שבתורה יעבור ואל ייהרג, that all the מצות in the תורה you should be עובר rather than to get killed, חוץ מעבודה זרה, גילוי עריות, שפיכות דמים, except עבודה זרה and adultery and murder. And the גמרא there continues, יכול אפילו בפרהסיא? I would think that even בפרהסיא, תלמוד לומר ולא תחללו את שם קדשי. So בפרהסיא then even other עבירות the דין is that you don't do the עבירה. But concerning עבודה זרה, גילוי עריות, שפיכות דמים, even בצנעא you have to be מוסר נפש. And that's how the שאילתות פסקנס. And here it comes out that רבא, who was later, seems to hold that by עבודה זרה, בצנעא you don't have to be מוסר נפש. Therefore תוספות says that באמת רבא also holds like רבי יוחנן. And the reason he said here הא בצנעא, הא בפרהסיא, that בצנעא you're allowed to do the עבירה and you don't have to be מוסר נפש, that is only to answer the פסוקים even according to רבי ישמעאל. Because רבי ישמעאל is the one that holds that by עבודה זרה you don't have to be מוסר נפש if it's בצנעא. So he wants to say that even according to רבי ישמעאל we could answer that this is בצנעא, this is בפרהסיא, that the place where it says that you do have to be מוסר נפש is בפרהסיא. Because otherwise it would be a קשיא on רבי ישמעאל. The פסוק says you should be מוסר נפש, and רבי ישמעאל says you don't have to be מוסר נפש. So the answer would be בפרהסיא רבי ישמעאל is מודה. But באמת רבא himself could hold that even בצנעא by עבודה זרה you have to be מוסר נפש. And תוספות even brings a ראיה that in the second פרק of כתובות, there it seems that רבא holds like רבי יוחנן. Because there רבא says himself, when the גמרא had a הוה אמינא that when people were forced to sign a שטר, a document, a monetary document falsely, they have to go on מסירות נפש. So רבא asked a question, how can you say that? Don't we know the דין that

אין לך דבר שעומד בפני פיקוח נפש, there is nothing that stands the way in the way of פיקוח נפש, אלא עבודה זרה, גילוי עריות, שפיכות דמים, only these three? So we see that רבא himself holds that by these three you do have to go on מסירות נפש. And there is a case of צנעא, we're not talking בפרהסיא. We're talking a case if it was done hiddenly, privately, because if we're forcing them to sign, obviously it's not done in public. So it's done privately. And nevertheless רבא says that only by עבודה זרה, גילוי עריות, שפיכות דמים you have to be מוסר נפש, but not by other things, but by עבודה זרה he says you do. So we see that רבא holds that by עבודה זרה, even בצנעא you have to be מוסר נפש. So this is לכאורה a סתירה to the גמרא here where it says that רבא holds that בצנעא you don't have to be מוסר נפש. Therefore we must say like תוספות said before, that באמת רבא holds that even בצנעא you have to be מוסר נפש עבודה זרה. The reason he said here הא בצנעא, הא בפרהסיא is to answer it according to רבי ישמעאל. And then תוספות brings from רב משה מקוצי that פשט in the גמרא is like this: that when רבא said that the פסוק comes to exclude אונס, and at the end it seems that when the תורה excludes אונס it's in the case of בצנעא, and when the תורה says that by אונס you also have to be מוסר נפש that's בפרהסיא, so רבא did not mean that it comes to exclude אונס completely, that you're allowed to do the עבירה. It comes to exclude אונס from the אזהרה, from the לאו, and from the punishment of מיתה. But there is nevertheless an עשה, even in the case of צנעא, that you have to be מוסר נפש because of that עשה. Because the פסוק says ואהבת את ה' אלקיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך. This is not a לא תעשה, this is not included in the negative commandment of ולא תחללו, but nevertheless the פסוק says you should love ה' with all your soul, and we דרש from the פסוק בכל נפשך, אפילו נוטל את נפשך, even if He takes away your נפש, which means you have to be מוסר נפש in love of ה'. So from that פסוק we know that you have to be מוסר נפש. And the whole discussion here in the גמרא where it says that אונס is פטור and then we said that this applies to צנעא, is only מצד a לא תעשה, but מצד the עשה you have to be מוסר נפש for עבודה זרה even בצנעא, even according to רבא.