AVODAH ZARAH 41 (10 Adar) - Dedicated by Shaul Yonah Markeluk of Buenos Aires L'iluy Nishmat his father, Itzjak ben Yaacov Markeluk Z'L (whose Yahrzeit is on 10 Adar), and for the Hatzlachah of his family and all of Klal Yisrael.

1)

(a)Initially, Rabah establishes the current Machlokes (between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim) by busts that are set up at the entrances of villages. On what grounds will even Rebbi Meir concede that those that are set up at the entrances of towns are permitted?

(b)On what basis do we refute Rabah's statement?

(c)So how do we amend it?

1)

(a)Initially, Rabah establishes the current Machlokes (between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim) by busts that are set up at the entrances of villages - but even Rebbi Meir will permit those that are set up at the entrance of towns. Rebbi Meir will concede however, that those that are set up at the entrances of towns are permitted - since their role is purely ornamental.

(b)We refute Rabah's statement however, on the basis of a S'vara - that, seeing as there is nobody who considers the busts outside the villages as being ornamental, why would the Chachamim permit them.

(c)So we amend it to read that - those outside the villages are forbidden even according to the Chachamim, and the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim refers to those outside the towns.

2)

(a)What is the significance of ...

1. ... the stick (in the hands of the image)?

2. ... the bird?

3. ... the ball?

(b)What else did they add besides a sword and a crown?

(c)What do these three objects symbolize?

(d)Why does our Mishnah not insert them in its list?

2)

(a)The significance of ...

1. ... the stick (in the hands of the image) is that - it symbolizes sovereignty.

2. ... the bird is that - the entire world is at his command like a bird, and the same applies to ...

3. ... the ball.

(b)Besides a sword and a crown - they added a ring.

(c)These three objects symbolize - the power to kill, of sovereignty and to sentence to death, respectively.

(d)Our Mishnah does not insert them in its list - because the Tana initially took them to signify a robber (who hijacked the throne), a crown-maker and the king's emissary (and are not therefore, a sign of kingship at all).

3)

(a)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids the image as long as it is holding something in its hand, even a clod of earth or a splinter of wood. We are unsure however, whether this incorporates a piece of dung. What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(b)What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

3)

(a)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids the image as long as it holding something in its hand, even a clod of earth or a splinter of wood. We are unsure however, whether this incorporates a piece of dung - which either signify that all his subjects are before him as insignificant as dung, or that they see him as insignificant as a piece of dung, since he is merely one individual before the entire community.

(b)The outcome of the She'eilah is - 'Teiku'.

4)

(a)What does our Mishnah say about someone who finds ...

1. ... broken pieces of Tzelamim?

2. ... the shape of a hand or a foot?

(b)Why the difference?

(c)What is the difference between a Tzelem (an image) and Avodas-Kochavim (an idol)?

(d)Why, according to Shmuel, who establishes the Reisha of the Mishnah even by broken pieces of an idol ...

1. ... are they permitted

2. ... does the Tana say 'Shivrei Tzelamim'?

(e)What would we have thought had the Tana mentioned 'Avodas-Kochavim' in the Reisha?

4)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that ...

1. ... broken pieces of Tzelamim that someone finds - are Mutar be'Hana'ah.

2. ... the shape of a hand or a foot - is Asur be'Hana'ah ...

(b)... because the latter is sometimes worshipped, whereas the former is not.

(c)The difference between a Tzelem (an image) and Avodas-Kochavim (an idol) is that - the former is only a potential idol (which may well not have been worshipped), whereas the latter we know, has.

(d)According to Shmuel, who establishes the Reisha of the Mishnah even by broken pieces of an idol ...

1. ... they are permitted - because, once they are broken, they are no longer worshipped.

2. ... the Tana mentions 'Shivrei Tzelamim' - on account of the Seifa, which is Asur even by a Tzelem ...

(e)... whereas had the Tana mentioned 'Avodas-Kochavim' in the Reisha, we would have thought that - even the hand or foot of a Tzelem is permitted.

5)

(a)How do we now reconcile the Seifa, forbidding the hand or foot of a Tzelem, with the Reisha, which permits broken pieces of Tzelem?

5)

(a)We reconcile the Seifa, forbidding the hand or foot of a Tzelem with the Reisha, which permits broken pieces of Tzelem - by establishing the former where they are placed on their base (a sure sign that they are still going to be worshipped).

41b----------------------------------------41b

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, an Avodah-Zarah that broke by itself remains Asur. Why is that?

(b)On what grounds does Resh Lakish disagree?

(c)Rebbi Yochanan queries Resh Lakish from the Pasuk in Shmuel. What does the Pasuk there say about the priests of Dagon (of the P'lishtim), after they found Dagon lying on the threshold of the temple, with its hands and feet cut off?

(d)How will Resh Lakish explain it?

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, an Avodah-Zarah that broke by itself remains Asur be'Hana'ah - because the owner did not nullify it.

(b)Resh Lakish disagrees, because he argues - when the Nochri discovers what happened to it, he will automatically nullify it, because if his god was not even capable of saving itself, how will it possibly be able to save him?

(c)Rebbi Yochanan then queries Resh Lakish from the Pasuk in Shmuel - which describes how even after the priests of Dagon found Dagon lying on the threshold of his temple with its hands and feet cut off - they no longer stepped on that spot.

(d)Resh Lakish will explain however that - in the minds of the people, the divine power of Dagon had been transferred from Dagon to the threshold of the temple.

7)

(a)How does Rebbi Yochanan then query Resh Lakish from our Mishnah 'ha'Motzei Shivrei Tzelamim, Harei eilu Mutarin' What do we extrapolate from there that poses a Kashya on Resh Lakish?

(b)How will Resh Lakish apply the implication?

7)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan then asks on Resh Lakish from our Mishnah 'ha'Motze Shivrei Tzelamim harei Eilu Mutarin' - implying that broken pieces of Avodah-Zarah would be forbidden (a Kashya on Resh Lakish).

(b)Resh Lakish answers that the implication reads - 'Ha Tzelamim Atzman, Asurim' (a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Meir).

8)

(a)How do we now query on Rebbi Yochanan, based on the fact that, according to Rebbi Meir, 'Tzelamim Asurin, ha Shivrei Tzelamim, Mutarin'? What might one then expect the Rabbanan to say?

(b)How will Rebbi Yochanan answer that? What is the logical difference between Shivrei Tzelamim according to Rebbi Meir and Shivrei Avodas-Kochavim according to Rebbi Yochanan?

(c)Why do we not query the Rabbanan from their own ruling, where they concede that Shivrei Tzelamim (even if they are wielding a stick) are permitted (as we explained in the Mishnah)?

8)

(a)Based on the fact that, according to Rebbi Meir, 'Tzelamim Asurin, ha Shivrei Tzelamim, Mutarin', we now query Rebbi Yochanan - Why, by the same token, we do not say according to the Rabbanan ' ... ha Shivrei Avodas-Kochavim, Mutarin'.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan will answer that - whereas Shivrei Tzelamim according to Rebbi Meir is a case of 'S'fek S'feika' (maybe the idol was never worshipped, and even if it was, maybe the owner nullified it), in the case of Shivrei Avodas-Kochavim (which were definitely worshipped) there is only one Safek, in which case we will apply the principle 'Ein Safek (that perhaps the Nochri nullified the god) Motzi mi'Yedei Vaday (that it was a real Avodah-Zarah)'.

(c)We do not query the Rabbanan from their own ruling, where they concede that Shivrei Tzelamim (even if they are wielding a stick) are permitted (as we explained in the Mishnah) - since this is not written explicitly in the Mishnah.

9)

(a)What does the Beraisa say about a case where a 'Chaver' dies, leaving behind a store full of crops (even assuming that they were only ready to be Ma'asered on that day)?

(b)To answer why we do not apply there too, the principle 'Ein Safek (the assumption that the Chaver Ma'asered it before he died) Motzi mi'Yedei Vaday' (that the fruit was definitely Tevel when he picked it), we quote Rebbi Chanina Chuza'ah. What done Rebbi Chanina Chuza'ah say? Why does he not consider it a case of 'Safek'?

(c)Alternatively, the Tana is speaking about a case of 'Safek ve'Safek', like Rebbi Oshaya said. What concession does Rebbi Oshaya present to enable a person to feed his animals without having to Ma'aser his crops?

(d)What did Rebbi Oshaya mean when he said 'be'Motz she'lah'?

9)

(a)The Beraisa rules that, in a case where a 'Chaver' dies, leaving behind a store full of crops (even assuming that they were only ready to be Ma'asered on that day) - the crops are assumed to be Ma'asered.

(b)To answer why do we not apply there too, the principle 'Ein Safek (the assumption that the Chaver Ma'asered it before he died) Motzi mi'Yedei Vaday' (that the fruit was definitely Tevel when he picked it), we quote Rebbi Chanina Chuza'ah, who says that - a Chaver has a Chazakah of Ma'asering his crops on the day that they become ready for Ma'asros. Consequently, it is really a case of 'Vaday Motzi mi'Yedei Vaday'.

(c)Alternatively, the Tana is speaking about a case of 'Safek ve'Safek', like Rebbi Oshaya - who permits a person to bring his crops into his courtyard 'still with the chaff' in order to feed his animals without having to Ma'aser them.

(d)When Rebbi Oshaya said 'be'Motz she'lah', he meant that - the owner did not yet winnow the crops, because if he did, then the moment he brings them into his courtyard, he is forbidden to feed even his animals before having Ma'asered them.

10)

(a)Why does Rebbi Oshaya only permit animals to eat from the crops? Does this mean that the owner is prohibited from doing so?

(b)Why is that?

(c)Then how can the Tana permit the fruit of a Chaver who died, without any restrictions?

10)

(a)When Rebbi Oshaya permits animals to eat from the crops - he is referring to feeding them Achilas K'va (fixed meals). The owner himself will also be permitted to eat Achilas Arai (a snack) from the crops ...

(b)... because the Achilas K'va of an animal has the same Din as the Achilas Arai of its owner.

(c)The Tana nevertheless permits the fruit of a Chaver who died, without any restrictions - because of the Chazakah that the Chaver Ma'asered the fruit before he died (added to the fact that the prohibition to eat a fixed meal from the crops is only mi'de'Rabbanan).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF