1)

(a)After the Shifchah of a certain Meitzik (bully) in Rimon threw her miscarriage into a pit a Kohen (who was also a Posek) came and peeped in the pit to ascertain whether the baby was a boy or a girl - to know how many days of Tum'ah and Taharah she had to observe.

(b)The Chachamim declared the Kohen, Tahor - based on the Chazakah that there were weasels and martens in the pit which might have dragged the miscarriage into its burrow.

(c)The problem this creates with our Sugya, which holds 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vaday' is - why this too, is not a case of 'Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vaday'?

(d)We therefore amend the statement ...

1. ... 'she'Hitilah Nefel le'Bor' - by adding the word 'ke'Miyn' (something that resembled) before 'Nefel', turning it into a case of 'Safek ve'Safek'.

2. ... 'Leida Im Zachar Im Nekeivah' - by adding the words 'Im Ru'ach Hipilah Im Nefel Hipilah' to the Safek, thereby turning it into a S'fek S'reika.

(e)Alternatively we might answer the Kashya, without amending the Beraisa at all - by establishing that it is not a Safek that a weasel ... might have dragged the Nefel into its burrow, but a Vaday (and is therefore a case of 'Vaday u'Vaday'.

2)

(a)Resh Lakish (who permits an Avodas-Kochavim that broke by itself) will explain our Mishnah 'Matza Tavnis Yad ... Harei eilu Asurin' - like Shmuel, who establishes it where the hand or the foot was found on its base (as we explained on the previous Daf).

(b)The Beraisa rules that the Avodah-Zarah of a Nochri that is nullified by ...

1. ... another Nochri - is permitted.

2. ... a Yisrael - remains forbidden

(c)Abaye reconciles Resh Lakish with this latter statement by establishing the Beraisa by Pachsah (with a 'Samech'), meaning that - they did not break up the image into pieces, but smashed it with a mallet until it lost its shape (which is why, in the case of a Yisrael, it remains forbidden).

(d)And when the Mishnah later states 'Pachsah, af-al-Pi she'Lo Chasrah, Batlah', Abaye explains that - that speaks where it is performed by a Nochri (by whom there is no difference between 'Pachsah' and 'Shavrah').

3)

(a)According to Rava, Pachsah is considered Bitul min ha'Torah, even at the hands of a Yisrael, and the Beraisa which does not acknowledge the Bitul of a Yisrael - speaks mi'de'Rabbanan, who decreed ...

(b)... for fear that the Yisrael might acquire the Avodah-Zarah, in which case Bitul will not be effective min ha'Torah.

(c)'Mar-Kulis' is - the name of an idol whose form of worship is to throw a stone on to the accumulating pile.

(d)The Beraisa rules that if a Nochri brings stones from Mar-Kulis and uses them to pave roads or theaters - a Yisrael is permitted to derive benefit from them ...

(e)... because taking stones from Mar-Kulis is in itself, Bitul.

4)

(a)The Beraisa forbids the same case if the stones are brought by a Yisrael - because of the decree that we just cited.

(b)The basis of the decree in this case is that - the Yisrael might lift up the entire pile of stones, before removing those that he intends to use for paving (which is akin to Pachsah).

(c)If a Nochri nullifies the Avodah-Zarah of a Yisrael - it remains Asur be'Hana'ah.

5)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if an Avodah-Zarah is filed down ...

1. ... by a Nochri for the shavings - both the idol and the shavings are permitted.

2. ... by a Nochri to enhance the appearance of the Avodah-Zarah - then the shavings are permitted, but the idol remains forbidden.

3. ... by a Yisrael - then either way, the Tana forbids both.

(b)Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa permits an Avodah-Zarah made of metal that a Yisrael grinds and scatters in the wind or casts in the sea. The Chachamim forbid it however - because the particles will manure the fields.

(c)... based on the Pasuk, "ve'Lo Yidbak be'Yadcha Me'umah min ha'Cherem" (forbidding every vestige of Hana'ah).

(d)Rebbi Yossi ben Yasian rules that if someone finds an image of Darkon (in the shape of a dragon) with its head cut off, assuming ...

1. ... it is a Safek whether a Yisrael did it or a Nochri - it is Mutar be'Hana'ah (because it is a S'fek S'feika [maybe it was never worshipped, and even if it was, maybe it was a Nochri who nullified it]).

2. ... we know for sure that a Yisrael did it - it is Asur be'Hana'ah.

(e)According to Resh Lakish, the Avodah-Zarah is Asur in all of these cases - because of the decree cited earlier by Rava.

6)

(a)The Tana Kama in a Mishnah later will permit planting vegetables underneath an Asheirah (a tree that is worshipped) in the winter, when the shade of the tree is bad for the growing vegetables. Rebbi Yossi forbids it - due to the falling leaves, which serve as manure for the vegetables.

(b)The reason we initially give to explain why the fallen leaves do not fall under the category of an Avodah-Zarah that broke by itself, in which case, according to Resh Lakish, Rebbi Yossi ought not to have forbidden the vegetables is - because the actual Avodah-Zarah is still intact.

(c)We refute this answer however, based on the Beraisa that we learned a little earlier, permitting the Avodah-Zarah from which the Nochri filed shavings for himself - even though the Avodah-Zarah retained its basic shape.

(d)So Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua reconciles Resh Lakish with Rebbi Yossi in the Beraisa - with the principle that an Avodas-Kochavim cannot become Bateil if the Bitul comes about through a natural process (such as leaves falling off a tree).

7)

(a)The Beraisa rules with regard to a bird's nest that is perched on top of a tree of Hekdesh 'Lo Nehenin ve'Lo Mo'alin'. The reason that there is no Me'ilah if one does is - because the prohibition is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b)The Tana suggests that if a nest is perched on top of an Asheirah-tree and one needs as firewood - one tips it off with a stick.

(c)One cannot simply climb the tree and take it down - since that would constitute deriving benefit from the Asheirah-tree.

8)

(a)Assuming that the bird made the nest with twigs from the tree itself, Resh Lakish queries Rebbi Yochanan from this Beraisa - which permits the nest to be used (when according to Rebbi Yochanan, it ought to be Asur).

(b)We answer that the nest was made of twigs that the bird brought from elsewhere, and prove this from the Reisha - which exempts the one who benefits from the Hekdesh-tree from Me'ilah d'Oraysa.

(c)This seems to prove Rebbi Yochanan right. Resh Lakish however, abides by his explanation (that the wood came from the Hekdesh-tree) attributing the fact that there is no Me'ilah - to the fact that the twigs used by the bird for its nest, grew only after the tree was declared Hekdesh, and the Tana holds 'Ein Me'ilah be'Gidulin' (whatever grows after the initial declaration of Hekdesh is not subject to Me'ilah).

9)

(a)Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan explains the Seifa 'Yatiz be'Efrochim' to mean that - it is not the nest that he tips off the tree, but the fledglings (which are definitely not Asur be'Hana'ah). In this way ...

(b)... he avoids having to learn like the first answer (that the bird made the nest out of wood that came from elsewhere) - which is a Dochek (a forced answer).

(c)So he establishes the Reisha - where the nest is made from twigs from the Hekdesh-tree but which grew only after the declaration of Hekdesh .... like Resh Lakish explained.

10)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Seifa switches to the case of the fledglings, since the Din (of 'Lo Nehenin') of the nest regarding Asheirah is obvious - because if the nest of Hekdesh is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, then the nest of an Asheirah-tree (whose twigs will always be Asur) is even Asur min ha'Torah.

(b)And the Tana did not insert the nest of the Asheirah-tree together with that of a Hekdesh-tree - because the Din of 'Lo Mo'alin' is not applicable to it.

(c)The Chidush in the Seifa, seeing as the nest is indisputably Mutar be'Hana'ah, is that - we do not decree on using a stick to tip the fledglings out, because he might then climb the tree to fetch them.

11)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that someone who finds vessels with a picture of the Mazel of the sun, the moon or Darkon painted on them (see Maharam) - should throw them into the 'Yam ha'Melach'.

(b)The author (who draws a distinction between some things and others) must be the Chachamim in the previous Mishnah - who consider some things that the image is holding to be more important than others, and not Rebbi Meir who doesn't draw a distinction between one thing and another (see Maharam).

(c)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel differentiates between pictures on important vessels and pictures on plain ones (as will be explained in the Sugya).

12)

(a)If someone Shechts an animal in the name of seas, rivers, mountains, hills, deserts, the sun, the moon, or the Mazalos, the Beraisa rules that - it is as if he Shechted 'Zivchei Meisim' (an analogy describing idol-worship).

(b)The Tana also includes in the list - Micha'el the Great Angel and a little worm.

(c)Abaye explains that our Mishnah includes only the three things that it does - because it is of the opinion that, whereas on the one hand all the things listed in the Beraisa are worshipped, it is only those that are listed in our Mishnah that the people consider important enough to paint on vessels and worship. Other pictures are intended to be purely ornamental.

13)

(a)When we say 'Rav Sheishes Mankit Chumri Masniyasa', we mean that - he collected difficult Mishnahs and Beraisos to try and explain them.

(b)One such Beraisa permits all Mazalos except for those of the sun or moon. The Tana states there that all ...

1. ... (images of) faces - are permitted except for human ones.

2. ... all images - are permitted except for that of Darkon.

14)

(a)We initially think that the above Beraisa cannot be referring to somebody who actually makes one of the images listed there - because bearing in mind the Pasuk "Lo Sa'asun Iti", which prohibits making an image of the servants that serve before Hash-m, why does the Beraisa then not include them in the prohibition.

(b)The four images incorporated by the Pasuk are - an ox, an eagle, a lion and man (which is listed anyway).

(c)If, on the other hand, we establish the Beraisa by where he finds the image, the problem will be - why the Tana then forbids the face of a man, when our Mishnah restricts the prohibition to the image of Darkon.

(d)So we re-establish the Beraisa by someone who makes the image, and the Drashah of "Lo Sa'asun Iti" goes like Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua (see Sugya 42b) - who restricts the four images to one image incorporating all four, whereas the Beraisa is talking about individual images.