תוספות ד"ה אבל

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Jew does not have to be a smith.)

לאו דווקא צורף דאפי' שאינו צורף נמי דכל ישראל לגבי עבודת כוכבים כצורפין

(a) Explanation: The Gemara does not specifically mean a Jewish smith, as even if the Jew is not a smith, regarding this law all Jews are considered by Nochrim like smiths.

מדמותיב מהלוקח גרוטאות ואי כשאינו צורף אסור מאי קפריך דלמא בשאינו צורף איירי אלא איידי דנקט צורף עובד כוכבים נקט נמי צורף ישראל

(b) Proof: This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara asks a question from a Beraisa regarding a person who buys bits of metal etc. If when the person is not a smith it is forbidden, what is the Gemara's question? Perhaps this Beraisa is referring to someone who is not a smith! Rather, being that the Gemara had to mention a Nochri smith, it also categorized the Jew as a smith.


תוספות ד"ה או דלמא

(SUMMARY: Rashi and the Rivan argue regarding the proper text of our Gemara.)

פירוש וה"ק אף בצורף ישראל

(a) Explanation #1: This means that even regarding a Jewish smith there is an argument.

הריב"ן גריס תיקו והדר גריס מיתיבי א"ר נראין כו' ומותיב למ"ד מחלוקת בצורף עובד כוכבים אלמא בין בזו ובין בזו מחלוקת

(b) Text #1: The Rivan has the text that this ends in Teiku. He then has the text that a question was asked from Rebbi's statement against the opinion that there is an argument only regarding a Nochri smith. This indicates that the argument indeed applies to a Jewish smith.

אבל ליכא למימר דלמיפשט בעיין אתי וקא מוכח דבתרוייהו פליגי כדמשמע מתוך פ"ה

1. Text #1 (cont.): However, one cannot say that this is coming to answer the question whether or not there is an argument regarding a Nochri smith, and that it proves that they argue regarding both a Jewish and Nochri smith, as is implied by the explanation of Rashi.

דא"כ כי קמשני לדחות שאין דוקא ולא פליגי אלא בחדא כלומר לצורף עובד כוכבים א"כ תקשי למ"ד בצורף ישראל פליגי והוה ליה למימר תינח למ"ד בצורף עובד כוכבים מחלוקת אלא למ"ד בצורף ישראל דוקא מחלוקת היכי לישני

2. Text #1 (cont.): If this would be the case, when the Gemara answers that this is not necessarily the implication of Rebbi's statement and that they therefore could argue solely about a Nochri smith, we should ask this as a question on the opinion that they only argue about a Jewish smith. The Gemara should ask that this is understandable according to the opinion that their argument is regarding a Nochri smith, but how can we understand this according to the opinion that this is only regarding a Jewish smith?

דאין לומר דלישני נראין דבריי לי במכרה לחבלה ודברי חביריי במכרה לעובדה דהכי הוה ליה לשנויי

3. Text #1 (cont.): One cannot say that we should answer that he means that his words are more reasonable regarding selling it to be destroyed, and their words are more reasonable when he sells it in order that it should be worshipped. This is because the Gemara should have answered this in the first place if it held it was correct.

ועוד דאין זה מעין מקומות אחרים בהמוכר הספינה (ב"ב דף עט.) גבי הקדש וכן בפרק קמא דחולין (דף יב.) גבי אשפה שבשוק

4. Text #1 (cont.): Additionally, this is not like other places throughout the Gemara (where Tanaim say "an opinion is more reasonable" as in these places they do not discount their own opinions), such in Bava Basra (79a) regarding Hekdesh and in Chulin (12a) regarding the garbage in the marketplace.

ומיהו יש ליישב הגירסא כמו שהיה בספרים וכפ"ה

(c) Text #2: However, it is possible to answer that the text is indeed like that found in the Sefarim and in the explanation of Rashi.

ובא לפשוט הבעיא וקאמר הכי ת"ש א"ר נראין כו' אלמא בצורף ישראל נמי פליגי ואיפשיטא בעיין דבין בזו ובין בזו פליגי

1. Text #2 (cont.): The Gemara is trying to answer the question (whether the second opinion understands the argument is by both a Jewish and non-Jewish smith, or it is only regarding a Jewish smith, but everyone agrees that it is not nullified if sold to a Nochri smith). The Gemara quotes Rebbi's statement implying that the argument is regarding a Jewish smith as well as a Nochri smith. This teaches us that they argue regarding both smiths.

ותקשי למ"ד בצורף עובד כוכבים דוקא פליגי דלא אתיא ברייתא כפשטיה ודחי כלומר אפי' למ"ד דבצורף עובד כוכבים דוקא פליגי יש לפרש הברייתא כן

2. Text #2 (cont.): This is a question according to the opinion that the argument is specifically regarding a Nochri smith, as the Beraisa does not work out well in its simple explanation. The Gemara pushes this aside by saying that even according to the opinion that they only argue regarding a Nochri smith, one can explain the Beraisa in this fashion.

ומיהו הפשיטות לא נדחית דלמ"ד בצורף ישראל פליגי והא אף בצורף ישראל קאמר

3. Text #2 (cont.): However, the simple explanation is not pushed aside. According to the opinion that they argue regarding a Jewish smith, it seems that he means that they even argue regarding a Jewish smith (based on the text of the Rashash in Tosfos that takes out the word "v'Ha").

ונ"ל דזהו עיקר דודאי הפשיטות לא נדחית דלגירסת הריב"ן נמי יש להקשות אמאי קאמר תיקו הא כמ"ד בצורף ישראל מחלוק' אי אפשר ליישב הברייתא אם לא שאמר בין בזו ובין בזו מחלוקת

(d) Opinion: It seems to me that this is the main opinion. Certainly, the simple explanation is not pushed aside. According to the Rivan's text, one can also ask why it says Teiku, as it is impossible to explain the Beraisa according to the opinion that they only argue regarding a Jewish smith.

ולא קשיא דקאמר תיקו ופשיט בתר הכי

(e) Implied Question: It is not difficult that the Gemara says Teiku and then answers the question. (It seems strange that the Gemara would say Teiku and then proceed to give an answer.)

דהכי אשכחן בפרק בתרא (דף סח.) גבי בעיא דפוגם מעיקרא מחלוקת דקיימא בתיקו ובתר הכי פשיט ליה

(f) Answer: We indeed find this in the Gemara in Bava Basra (68a) regarding the question about something that originally caused something else not to taste good, and later it changes to a good taste (and something that originally tasted good when added and then causes it to taste bad). The Gemara first says Teiku, and then answers the question.



תוספות ד"ה אם עתידין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the idol is never nullified, and the general explanation of why the battle of Yehoshua is mentioned in the Beraisa.)

הא דנקט עולמית

(a) Implied Question: The Beraisa says that the idol is never nullified. (How can this be if it is the idol of a Nochri, which can be nullified by another Nochri?)

משום מסקנא דאגב אורחיה קמ"ל כדרב יהודה משום דהויא עבודת כוכבים של ישראל כדמסיק דאלו עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים יש לה ביטול דהא ודאי עובד כוכבים שהניח עבודת כוכבים אע"פ שדעתו היה לחזור ולא בטלה יכולה להתבטל ע"י עובד כוכבים אחר

(b) Answer: The Beraisa uses this term to teach a sidepoint, that we hold like Rav Yehudah's statement that being that the Nochri served it because of the Jew, it has the law of an idol of a Jew that is never nullified. If it would be the idol of a Nochri, it could be nullified. It is certainly true that if a Nochri left an idol somewhere, even if he had intent to return and did not nullify it, it could be nullified by another Nochri (which was the reasoning behind the question above).

ומה שפירש רש"י נמי בסמוך הרי היא כמלחמת יהושע שדימו העובדי כוכבים לחזור לא פירש כן אלא ליישב הלשון של הרי היא כמלחמת יהושע

(c) Explanation: Rashi's explanation that this is like the battle of Yehoshua where the Nochrim wanted to come back was only said by Rashi in order to explain the terminology that "it is like the battle of Yehoshua."

כי אותה אינו תלוי שדימו לחזור במה שלא נתבטלה לעולם אלא מפני שעבדום לדעת ישראל כדמסיק אלא בכך דומה כלומר דעתם לחזור כמו שהיו האמוריים דעתם לחזור

1. Explanation (cont.): The important factor is not that they wanted to return and therefore it is not nullified, but rather that they served because Jews wanted them to, as is the conclusion of the Gemara. Rather, it is similar to the Nochrim in the time of Yehoshua in that these people were going to return to their idolatry just as the Emorites intended to return.

ולהכי פריך למה לי למתלא במלחמת יהושע כיון שטעם מלחמת יהושע אינוי תלוי בדעתם לחזור אלא משום שעבדום לדעת ישראל ומסיק כדרב יהודה ואהא ודאי קאי עולמית כדפרישית לעיל

2. Explanation (cont.): This is indeed why the Gemara asks that there is no reason to state this is like the battle of Yehoshua, being that the reasoning regarding the battle of Yehoshua has nothing to do with them wanting to come back, but rather because they served based on the intent of Jews (who served the Golden Calf, as explained by the Gemara). The Gemara concludes like Rav Yehudah's statement, and when it says it is never nullified, it is certainly referring to his (Rav Yehudah's) case, as I have explained earlier.


תוספות ד"ה דאי תנא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Beraisa and our Gemara are like Rebbi.)

משמע דאתיא כר'

(a) Observation: This indicates that the Gemara holds like Rebbi.

דאי לרבנן אפי' זבנה לא בטלה

(b) Proof #1: According to the Rabbanan, even if he would have sold the idol it is not indicative of nullification.

ועוד מדתלי טעמא בעתידין לחזור דאי לרבנן אפי' אינן עתידין לחזור לא עדיף ממכרה

(c) Proof #2: Additionally, the fact that the Beraisa states that the reason is because they are going to come back indicates that it holds like Rebbi. According to the Rabbanan, even if they are not going to come back it not better than selling it (which is not considered nullification according to the Rabbanan).

ומכאן יש להוכיח דהא דאמר לעיל משכנה דביטל לר' היינו כיון שנשתקעה דאי לא נשתקעה מודה ר' דלא בטיל כיון דדעתו לחזור

(d) Opinion: It is apparent from here that when Rebbi earlier stated that if he gave his idol as collateral it is nullified, this is only if it remained by the Jew for a long time. If it did not, Rebbi agrees that it is not nullified, being that it is his intention to get it back.


תוספות ד"ה ובא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos and Rabeinu Shmuel argue regarding a case where a Nochri bowed to a different brick owned by this Jew.)

פי' לאותה לבינה עצמה שזקף הישראל אבל בא העובד כוכבים וזקף אחרת והשתחוה לה אינה נאסרת דדלמא לא ניחא ליה לישראל אלא באותה שזקף ודלא כפי' רבינו שמואל

(a) Explanation: This means that the Nochri bowed down to the very brick that the Jew had set up. However, if the Nochri came and set up a different brick (belonging to the Jew) and bowed down to it, the first brick is not forbidden, as perhaps the Jew did not want any other brick to be an idol aside from the one that he set up for this purpose. This is unlike the explanation of Rabeinu Shmuel (who holds that all of the Jew's designated bricks are now forbidden).


תוספות ד"ה והולכים

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the kings traveling on a different road leads to nullification.)

והכומרים שעבדום לא עשאום עבודת כוכבים אלא לצורך המלכים וכשרואין שאין המלכים חוששין בהם גם הם מבטלים אותם

(a) Explanation: The priests who made these into idols only did so for the purpose of the kings. When they see the kings did not care enough to worship them, they also nullify them.