1)'BITUL' OF A DENTED 'MIZBE'ACH'

(a)(Chizkiyah): We learn (that a dented Mizbe'ach is forbidden until the majority breaks off) from "b'Sumu Kol Avnei Mizbe'ach k'Avnei Gir Menupatzos Lo Yakumu Asherim veha'Manim" - if they are broken like frost, they will not offer on them. If not, they will offer on them.

2)CAN ONE FORBID OTHERS' PROPERTY?

(a)(Beraisa): If one worshipped his own animal, it is forbidden. If he worshipped another's animal, it is permitted.

(b)Contradiction (Beraisa): Whether an animal was Ne'evad b'Mezid or b'Shogeg, willingly or b'Ones (under compulsion), it is forbidden.

1.Question: What is the case of Ones?

i.Suggestion: Someone stole his animal and worshipped it.

(c)Answer #1 (to both questions - Rami bar Chama): No, Nochrim forced him to bow to his own animal.

1.Question (R. Zeira): The Torah exempts Ones - "vela'Na'arah Lo Sa'aseh Davar" (therefore, Ne'evad b'Ones is not considered Ne'evad)!

2.Answer (Rava): We would have thought that "v'Lo Sa'avdem" forbids serving willingly or b'Ones;

i."Va'Chai Bahem" - but one may not (Rambam; Tosfos (27b) - need not) forfeit one's life to avoid transgressing.

ii.Contradiction: "V'Lo Sechalelu Es Shem Kodshi" - one may not transgress, even b'Ones.

iii.Resolution: In private, "va'Chai Bahem" applies. In public, "v'Lo Sechalelu..." applies. (Tosfos - regarding idolatry, the Halachah never permits transgressing, even in private.)

3.Support (for Rava - Beraisa): If there was a decree (to publicly force Yisraelim to serve idolatry), a Bimus of Nochrim is forbidden, even after the decree ends. (Even though Yisraelim were Anusim, since they were forbidden to serve, the Bimus is forbidden.)

4.Rejection (Rava): Perhaps they are forbidden lest a Yisrael Mumar served willingly (and idolatry of a Yisrael is never Batel).

5.(Rav Ashi): Surely, at such a time, a Yisrael Mumar served!

(d)Answer #2 (to questions (b) and (b:1) - Chizkiyah): The case is, one poured wine to idolatry between the horns of Reuven's animal. (Since he did an action to the animal, he is able to forbid it.)

(e)Objection (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The animal was not Ne'evad. It is only Meshamshim of idolatry! (Rashi - a living animal is not forbidden due to Meshamshim; R. Chananel - Meshamshim of a Yisrael can become Batel; Ra'avad - Meshamshim are forbidden only if they were made to be Meshamshim from the beginning; Ramban - the Beraisa said that the animal itself was Ne'evad.)

(f)Answer #3 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The case is, one poured wine between the horns of Reuven's animal to serve it. Since he did an action to it, he forbids it;

(g)This is like Ula taught.

(h)(Ula citing R. Yochanan): Even though one who bows to another's animal does not forbid it, if he did an action to it (for idolatry), he forbids it.

(i)Rav Nachman: Rav Huna explained R. Yochanan's teaching (what is considered doing an action to it);

1.(Rav Huna): If Reuven's animal was lying in front of idolatry and someone else slaughtered the Kaneh or Veshet, it is forbidden.

(j)Question: What is the source (that it is forbidden)?

1.Suggestion: We learn from Kohanim who were forced to serve idolatry. They were forbidden to serve in the Mikdash.

2.Rejection: Perhaps Kohanim become forbidden, because they have understanding (but Reuven's animal is not forbidden against his will)!

(k)Answer #1: We learn from the stones of the Mizbe'ach. (They are Hekdesh, so the Yevanim did not own them, yet by using them for idolatry they forbade them, and the stones had to be buried.)

(l)Rejection: Rav Papa expounded "u'Va'u Vah Paritzim v'Chileluha" - Yevanim were Mechalel them (and acquired them, therefore they could forbid them).

54b----------------------------------------54b

(m)Answer #2: We learn from Kelim that Achaz used for idolatry.

1."Ha'Kelim Asher Hizni'ach Melech Achaz... Hechanu (we put them in Genizah) v'Hikdashnu (we were Makdish new Kelim in place of them)";

2.Even though Achaz did not own them (they were Hekdesh), because he did an action to them, he forbade them.

3.Likewise, one who does an action to another's animal forbids it.

(n)(Rav Dimi citing R. Yochanan): Even though one who bows to land (untouched by man) does not forbid it, if he digs pits in it for the sake of idolatry, he forbids it.

3)ARE 'CHALIPIN' FORBIDDEN?

(a)(Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah citing R. Yochanan): Even though one who bows to a living animal does not forbid it, if he trades it for idolatry, he forbids it.

(b)(Ravin): R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi and Chachamim argue about Chalipin of (something traded for) Chalipin of idolatry. One forbids it, and one permits it.

1.Opinion #1 (which forbids) learns from "v'Hayisa Cherem Kamohu" - whatever you Mehaveh (make or get) from idolatry is (forbidden) like idolatry.

2.Opinion #2 (which permits) learns from "(Ki Cherem) Hu" - (what you trade it for is like it,) but not Chalipin of Chalipin of it.

3.Opinion #1 uses "Hu" to exclude Orlah and Kil'ayim (Chalipin of either of them is permitted);

i.If one sold Orlah or Kil'ayim and was Mekadesh a woman with the money, she is Mekudeshes.

4.Opinion #2 does not need "Hu" to permit them, since idolatry and Shemitah Peros are two verse that forbid Chalipin;

i.If two verses teach the same principle, we do not learn to other cases.

(c)Question: What is the source that Chalipin of Shemitah Peros are forbidden?

(d)Answer: "Ki Yovel Hu Kodesh Tihyeh Lachem" - just like Kodesh transfers its Isur to money used to redeem it, Shemitah Peros transfer their restrictions to their Chalipin.

(e)Suggestion: Just like Hekdesh becomes Chulin after redemption, we should say that Shemitah Peros become permitted after trading them!

(f)Rejection: "Tihyeh" - the Shemitah Peros always keep their stringencies. (When a species of Peros is no longer available in the field, one must do Bi'ur on Shemitah Peros of that species in his possession. Rambam - he eradicates them; Rashi - he removes them from one's house; Ramban - he makes them Hefker.)

1.If Reuven bought meat with Shemitah Peros, when the time for Bi'ur (of the Peros) comes, it applies to both the meat and the Peros;

2.If he traded the meat for fish (and then wine, and then oil), Bi'ur applies only to the last thing bought and the original Shemitah Peros.

3.Opinion #1 holds that when two verses teach the same principle, we do learn to other cases, therefore we need "Hu" to exclude Orlah and Kil'ayim.

4)WHY HASH-M LEAVES IDOLATRY IN THE WORLD

(a)(Mishnah - Romans) Question: If Hash-m dislikes idolatry, why does He leave it in the world?

(b)Chachamim: Indeed, if people worshipped only needless things, He would abolish it;

1.However, people serve the sun, moon, stars and constellations. Hash-m will not abolish these and ruin the world due to fools who serve them!

(c)Romans: People worship also needless things. Why does He leave them in the world?

(d)Chachamim: If He would abolish only the needless ones, people would think that the sun, moon, etc. remain because they are truly gods!

(e)(Gemara - Beraisa - Roman philosophers) Question: If Hash-m dislikes idolatry, why does He leave it in the world?

(f)Chachamim: Indeed, if people worshipped only needless things, He would abolish it;

1.However, people serve the sun, moon, stars and constellations. Hash-m will not abolish these and ruin the world due to fools who serve them!

2.Rather, He allows the world to exist according to its nature. The idolaters will be punished in the future.

3.Similarly, if one stole wheat and planted it, it is proper that it should not sprout (i.e. a sinner should not profit). Rather, the world goes according to its nature, and the sinners will be punished in the future.

4.Similarly, if a man had relations with another man's wife, it is proper that she should not become pregnant. Rather, the world goes according to its nature, and the sinners will be punished in the future.

5.(Reish Lakish): Hash-m says 'not only do sinners make a free-for-all of My mintage (they father children in My Tzelem (likeness) from others' wives), they also 'burden' Me (to form the babies) and force me to stamp (My Tzelem, for the world goes according to its nature).'

(g)Question (Roman philosophers): "Ki Hash-m... Kel Kana" - why does Hash-m have Kinah (enmity) against idolaters, and not against idolatry?

(h)Answer (Raban Gamliel): A parable explains this. The son of a mortal king had a dog. He called it by his father's name (Ploni). He would swear 'by the life of dog Ploni.' The father will be angry at his son, and not at the dog!

1.The philosophers: Do you call idolatry a dog?! It has special powers! Once, a fire burned everything in the city, except for the house of idolatry!

2.Raban Gamliel: A parable explains this. Subjects of a mortal king rebelled against him. When he fights them, he only fights the living, and not the dead.

3.The philosophers: You call idolatry a dog, and you call it dead?! If so, why doesn't Hash-m eradicate it from the world?

4.Raban Gamliel: Indeed, if people worshipped only needless things, He would abolish it;

5.However, people serve the sun, moon, stars and constellations. - Hash-m will not abolish these and ruin the world due to fools who serve them!

i."Asof Asef Kol me'Al Penei ha'Adamah... Adam u'Vhemah Asef Of ha'Shamayim u'Dgei ha'Yam" - Hash-m asks, because Resha'im stumble in (worship) these things, should I destroy them?! Will I destroy man, because they worship man?!

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF