Question (Beraisa): ("Abed Te'abedun...") refers to Kelim used to serve idolatry.

The verse says "Es Kol ha'Mekomos" (it does not refer to Kelim)!

Answer: We do not need it to teach about the places, for they do not become forbidden - "Eloheihem Al he'Harim (their gods on the mountains)", but the mountains are not their gods;

We use this to teach about Kelim. It teaches that idolatry of a Nochri is not forbidden until it is Ne'evad, idolatry of a Yisrael is forbidden immediately.

Question: We said that the verse teaches about Kelim. How do we learn about idolatry itself?

Answer: The verse continues "Asher Atem Yoreshim Osam Es Eloheihem." This equates their gods to Kelim;

Just like Kelim are not forbidden until they are Ne'evad, also their gods.

R. Akiva does not equate them, because "Es" separates the Kelim from the gods.

Question: What is R. Yishmael's source that idolatry of a Yisrael is forbidden immediately?

Answer: He deduces: since idolatry of a Nochri is not forbidden until it is Ne'evad, idolatry of a Yisrael is forbidden immediately.

Suggestion: Perhaps idolatry of a Yisrael is never forbidden?

Rejection: We know that it must be buried. Surely it is forbidden!

Suggestion: Perhaps it has the same law as idolatry of a Nochri!

Rejection: "V'Es Chataschem Asher Asisem Es ha'Egel" - from the time of Asiyah (making it), there is Chet (siin).

Suggestion: Perhaps the one who made it sinned, but it is not forbidden until it is Ne'evad!

Rejection: "Arur ha'Ish Asher Ya'aseh Fesel u'Masechah" - from the time he made it, he is cursed.

Suggestion: Perhaps he is cursed, but it is not forbidden until it is Ne'evad!

Rejection: It says "To'avas Hash-m."

R. Akiva explains, it (is not an abomination. It) leads to an abomination.

Question: What is R. Akiva's source that idolatry of a Nochri is forbidden immediately?

Answer (Ula): "Pesilei Eloheihem Tisrefun ba'Esh" - from the time it was Nifsal (carved out), it is an Elil (idol, and it is forbidden).

R. Yishmael uses this to teach Rav Yosef's law.

(Rav Yosef): A Nochri can be Mevatel his idolatry - "Pesilei Eloheihem Tisrefun ba'Esh." (This alludes to being Posel (Mevatel) his gods.)

R. Akiva learns this like Shmuel does.

Contradiction (Shmuel): It says (at the end of that verse) "Lo Sachmod Kesef v'Zahav Aleihem" (you may not take them), and it says "v'Lakachta Lach"!

Resolution: If he Paslo (carved it) to make an Eloha, Tisrefun ba'Esh (it is forbidden). If he was Posel his Eloha, "v'Lakachta Lach."

Question: We explained how R. Akiva learned that idolatry of a Nochri is forbidden immediately;

What is his source that idolatry of a Yisrael is not forbidden until it is Ne'evad?

Answer (Rav Yehudah): "V'Sam ba'Saser" - it is not forbidden until he does with it things done ba'Seser (in seclusion, i.e. idolatry).

R. Yishmael uses this to teach R. Yitzchak's law.

(R. Yitzchak): Idolatry of a Yisrael requires Genizah (burial) - "v'Sam ba'Saser."

R. Akiva learns this like Rav Chisda does.

(Rav Chisda): Idolatry of a Yisrael requires Genizah - "Lo Sita Lecha Asherah Kol Etz Etzel Mizbach" - just like the Mizbe'ach requires Genizah, also idolatry of a Yisrael.

R. Yishmael expounds that verse as Reish Lakish does.

(Reish Lakish): Appointing an unlearned judge is like planting an Asherah - it says "Shofetim v'Shoterim Titen Lecha", followed by "Lo Sita Lecha Asherah Kol Etz."

(Rav Ashi): Appointing an unlearned judge when Chachamim are available is like planting an Asherah next to the Mizbe'ach. The verse continues "... Etzel Mizbach Hash-m."

Question (Rav Hamnuna): If one fixed a broken Keli used for idolatry, what is the law?

Question: Whose idolatry was it?

If it was a Nochri's, all agree that Meshamshim (things used to serve idolatry) of a Nochri are not forbidden until they are used for idolatry! (He would not need to ask.)

Answer: It was a Yisrael's.

Question: According to whom does he ask?

Suggestion: He asks according to R. Akiva.

Rejection: R. Akiva says that idolatry of a Yisrael is not forbidden until it is Ne'evad, and all the more so Meshamshim!

Answer: He asks according to R. Yishmael, who says that a Yisrael's idolatry is forbidden immediately.

Essence of the question: Do we learn Meshamshim (of a Yisrael) from Meshamshim (of a Nochri), and it is permitted until it is used for Avodah?

Or, do we learn Meshamshim of a Yisrael from idolatry of a Yisrael, and it is forbidden immediately?

Question: Why did Rav Hamnuna ask about fixing a Keli? He should have asked about making a Keli!

Answer: Rav Hamnuna asked about a Keli that becomes Tamei again when it is fixed.

(Mishnah): A metal Keli receives Tum'ah, whether or not it holds anything;

If it became Tamei, was broken (which is Metaher it) and was fixed, it returns to its original Tum'ah. (This is a Rabbinic enactment.)

Question (Rav Hamnuna): Does it return to its original Tum'ah only regarding Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, but not regarding Tum'ah mid'Rabanan;

Or, does this apply even to a Tum'ah mid'Rabanan (such as Meshamshim of idolatry)?

Question: Why did he ask about idolatry, and not a different Tum'ah mid'Rabanan?

Answer: Even if he would find that other Tum'os mid'Rabanan do not return, he still would not know about idolatry;

Perhaps due to the stringency of idolatry, we treat its Tum'ah like mid'Oraisa, and it returns.

This question is not resolved.

Question (R. Yochanan): If food was offered to idolatry, and the idolatry was Batel, does this Metaher the food?

Question: Why didn't he ask about Kelim (Rashi - Meshamshim; Tosfos - offered to idolatry)?

Answer: That was obvious. Since they can become Tahor through Tevilah (immersion), they become Tahor also through Bitul.

The question is only about food, which cannot become Tahor through Tevilah.

Question: Why didn't he ask about idolatry itself?

Answer: That was obvious. Since the Isur (to benefit from it) goes away through Bitul, also the Tum'ah goes away;

The question is only about Takroves. Its Isur never goes away, like Rav Gidal taught (50a).

Essence of the question: Do we say that since the Isur never goes away, also the Tum'ah never goes away?

Or, the Isur never goes away because it is mid'Oraisa, but the Tum'ah is only mid'Rabanan, it goes away?

This question is not resolved.

Question (R. Yosi ben Sha'ul): Kelim that were used in Beis Chonyo (a place of worship in Miztrayim; Tana'im argue about whether it was idolatrous), may they be used in the Mikdash?

He asks according to the opinion that Beis Chonyo was not l'Shem idolatry.

(Mishnah): Kohanim who served in Beis Chonyo may not serve in the Mikdash, and all the more so those who served idolatry.

Essence of the question: Perhaps we fine only the Kohanim, because they chose to transgress, but we do not forbid Kelim;

Or, do we forbid even Kelim?

Answer (Rebbi): They are forbidden, but I cannot remember the verse that teaches this!

Question: "Ha'Kelim Asher Hizni'ach Melech Achaz... Hechanu (we immersed them) v'Hikdashnu" (we re-anointed them with oil, even though they had been used for idolatry)!

Answer (Rebbi): You reminded me of the verse that teaches the law (but you misunderstood it)!

"Hechanu" means that we put them in Genizah. "V'Hikdashnu" means that we were Makdish new Kelim in place of them.

Support (Mishnah): The Chashmona'im hid the stones of the Mizbe'ach (that the Yevanim had desecrated) under the chamber in the northeast corner of the Mikdash.

(Rav Sheshes): They desecrated them by using them for idolatry.

Rejection (Rav Papa): No, a verse teaches that those stones were forbidden even to people - "u'Va'u Vah Paritzim v'Chileluha" (once the Nochrim entered, the stones lost their Kedushah, so the Nochrim were able to acquire them and forbid them. This does not prove that Achaz could forbid Hekdesh.)

Question: Why was Genizah required? They could have forced Nochrim to break (and be Mevatel) the rocks!

Answer: We must build the Mizbe'ach with "Avanim Shelemos" (complete rocks).

Question: They could smooth them out later (with a blade)!

Answer: This disqualifies rocks for the Mizbe'ach - "Lo Sanif Aleihem Barzel."

Question: Why didn't the Chashmona'im (force Nochrim to) break (and be Mevatel) the rocks, and benefit from them (for Chulin purposes)?

(R. Oshaya): Chachamim wanted to forbid all gold and silver in the world due to the gold and silver from Yerushalayim (most of which was Hekdesh).

Objection: Surely, the majority of gold and silver in the world is not from Yerushalayim!

Correction (Abaye): Rather, they wanted to forbid all coins of Hadri'anus and Torainus (Rashi - Roman emperors who ruled over Yerushalayim; Tosfos - large, round coins) whose forms were blunted (perhaps the coins were from Yerushalayim (Tosfos - from the days of David and Shlomo), most of which are Hekdesh);

They expounded that they are permitted - "v'Chileluha" (they profaned it and made it Chulin).

Answer: The coins had not been used to serve Hash-m. The Mizbe'ach was used to serve Hash-m, therefore it was improper for people to benefit from its rocks.

(Mishnah): A Nochri can be Mevatel his idolatry or that of another Nochri. A Yisrael cannot be Mevatel a Nochri's idolatry.

If one is Mevatel a Nochri's idolatry, also the Meshamshim are Betelim. If one is Mevatel the Meshamshim, they are permitted, and the idolatry is forbidden.

Version #1 - (Gemara - Rebbi): A Nochri can be Mevatel his idolatry or that of another Nochri.

R. Shimon (his son): In your youth, you taught that a Nochri can be Mevatel his idolatry or that of a Yisrael!

Question: No one can be Mevatel idolatry of a Yisrael - "v'Sam ba'Saser"!

Answer (R. Hilel brei d'R. Vilas): The case is, the Nochri is a partner in the idolatry (he can be Mevatel the Yisrael's share also).

Question: What was Rebbi's reasoning in his youth, and what was his reasoning in his old age?

In his youth, he held that a Yisrael serves the joint idolatry according to the Nochri's will. When the Nochri is Mevatel it, also the Yisrael is Mevatel;

In his old age, he held that a Yisrael serves according to his own will. He is not Mevatel when the Nochri is Mevatel.

Version #2 (Mishnah): A Yisrael cannot be Mevatel a Nochri's idolatry.

Objection: This is obvious!

Answer (R. Hilel brei d'R. Vilas): The case is, the Yisrael is a partner in the idolatry;

(Indeed, it is obvious that the Yisrael cannot be Mevatel at all.) The Chidush is the inference. Even though the Nochri cannot be Mevatel the Yisrael's share, he can be Mevatel his own share.