1)

(a)Resh Lakish asked whether a Lulav picked from a date-palm in front of which someone prostrated himself, is permitted for the Mitzvah on Succos. There is no She'eilah in the case of a date-palm that was planted initially ...

1. ... for that purpose - because that is forbidden even for the use of a Hedyot, as is one which was planted ...

2. ... for one's personal use and later worshipped, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah.

(b)Resh Lakish therefore asks the She'eilah - in the latter case, according to the Rabbanan.

(c)The basis of the She'eilah is - whether, even though such a date-palm is Mutar be'Hana'ah, it might be forbidden to use for a Mitzvah - because it is repulsive in the eyes of Hash-m.

(d)When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he established the She'eilah by a date-palm of Avodah-Zarah which a Nochri declared Bateil, and the question is - whether we say 'Yesh Dichuy Eitzel Mitzvos' (once an object of Mitzvah becomes Asur, it cannot become permitted).

2)

(a)We try to resolve Rav Dimi's version of the She'eilah from a Mishnah in Chulin, which rules that the blood of a wild animal or a bird that was Shechted, which ...

1. ... one covered and which became uncovered again - does not require re-covering.

2. ... was initially covered by the wind - does.

(b)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan qualifies the latter ruling - confining it to where it became uncovered again. Otherwise, he is Patur.

(c)Even if the wind did uncover the blood again, to explain why it is not exempt from Kisuy due to the principle 'Ho'il ve'Idchi, Idchi', Rav Papa cites the principle - 'Ein Dichuy Eitzel Mitzvos'.

(d)We cannot resolve Rav Dimi's She'eilah from Rav Papa's principle - because we suspect that Rav Papa himself only cites it 'le'Chumra' because he has a Safek as to whether to apply it or not. Consequently, his ruling there will not apply here, where it constitutes a Kula.

(e)The outcome of the She'eilah is therefore - 'Teiku' (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos).

3)

(a)Rav Papa asked whether the wool of a sheep which has been worshipped may be used for Techeiles, which can pertain either to the Bigdei Kehunah or to the Mitzvah of Tzitzis. The problem with learning the She'eilah in connection with ...

1. ... the Bigdei Kehunah is that - it duplicates the She'eilah already asked by Rami bar Chama earlier in the Sugya ('ha'Mishtachaveh le'Har, Avanav Mahu le'Mizbe'ach').

2. ... Tzitzis is that - it is synonymous with Resh Lakish's She'eilah ('ha'Mishtachaveh le'Dekel, Lulavo Mahu le'Mitzvah?')?

(b)We answer that Rav Papa did not really need to ask this She'eilah, and he asked it because of another She'eilah that he asked together with it - whether the horns of a worshipped animal may be used to make trumpets, the calves to make flutes and the intestines to make strings for the harps (all to be used for the Avodah in the Beis-Hamikdash).

(c)They might be ...

1. ... permitted, even assuming that the Techeiles for the Bigdei Kehunah is forbidden - according to the opinion that the main Mitzvah of Shirah is done with the mouth, and the instruments are only of secondary importance.

2. ... forbidden, even assuming that a Lulav from a worshipped date-palm is permitted - since their purpose is to enhance the Korbanos, it would be more repulsive to use something that has Avodah-Zarah connections.

(d)The outcome of this She'eilah too is - 'Teiku'.

4)

(a)Rabah asks whether the water of a spring that someone worshipped is eligible for the Nesachim (for the Avodah in the Beis-Hamikdash). We reject the suggestion that the She'eilah is whether one is worshipping the water or one's own reflection - because then Rabah ought rather to have asked the same She'eilah with regard to water in a dish.

(b)From the fact that he did not ask it that way, we are forced to assume - that he considers it Asur.

(c)So we conclude that he is in fact, worshipping the water (and not his reflection), and the She'eilah is - whether he means to worship the water in front of him (which soon passes, leaving the rest of the water in the spring Mutar, or whether he means to worship all the water in the spring.

(d)We reconcile the possibility that the spring might be Asur, with Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, who rules that public water cannot become Asur - by restricting the case to where the spring flows exclusively within the borders of the worshipper's own field.

5)

(a)When our Mishnah speaks about someone whose wall (of his house) was 'Samuch la'Avodas Kochavim', it means that - he shares a wall with a house that was actually worshipped.

(b)In the event that his house collapses, the only option the Tana leaves him with is - to rebuild his wall at a distance of four Amos from the spot where it originally stood.

(c)When the Tana then adds that they go halves on the wall, he means that he may count his half of the wall in those four Amos, but not the other half.

6)

(a)Based on the Pasuk "Shaketz Teshaktzenu", the Tana Kama declares the stones, the wood and the dust of such a Beis Avodah-Zarah that collapsed, Tamei like a Sheretz. Rebbi Akiva, based on the Pasuk "Tizarem K'mo Davah, Tzei Tomar Lo" - goes still further, declaring them Tamei like a Nidah.

(b)The practical difference between Tum'as Sheretz and Tum'as Nidah in this regard is that - the latter is Metamei be'Masa, as well as be'Maga.

(c)Tum'as Masa constitutes - anything on which the Nidah sits, even though she does not actually touch it (if she sits on ten sheets, all of them are Tamei (and the same will apply to anything on which the Avodah-Zarah is lying [see also Hagahos ha'Bach]).

7)

(a)The problem with the ruling in our Mishnah that requires the Yisrael to rebuild the wall four Amos within his own domain is that - by doing so, he donates space to the Avodas-Kochavim.

(b)Rebbi Chanina from Sura resolves the problem - by establishing that one uses the intervening space as a bathroom.

(c)The problem that arises in doing so ...

1. ... by day is that - relieving oneself in the open contravenes the laws of Tzeni'us ...

2. ... even by night - seeing as Mar requires a bathroom used by night to be in the same place as the one that one uses by day.

(d)We interpret Mar's statement 'Eizehu Tzanu'a, ha'Nifneh ba'Laylah be'Makom she'Nifneh ba'Yom' to mean - (not in the same location, but) in the same way (by taking care not to uncover oneself more than necessary).

(e)Nevertheless, the Beraisa insinuates that should behave there with Tz'niyus. We therefore answer the Kashya in one of two ways. One of them, that the bathroom is used for small children (who are not subject to the same stringent laws of Tzeni'us). The other - by requiring the Yisrael to put up a hedge of thorns (where the wall originally was), which will suffice for Tzeni'us purposes, without giving the Avodah-Zarah any benefit.

8)

(a)Our Mishnah lists 'three houses'. The Tana there rules that if someone ...

1. ... builds a house in order to worship it - it is Asur.

2. ... cements a house that is already built, or carves pictures on it, on behalf of Avodah-Zarah - one has only to remove the cement or the picture (since that is what is Asur), and the house retains its status of Heter.

3. ... brings an Avodah-Zarah into a house that is already built - one has only to remove it from the house, for the house to become Mutar once more.

(b)Despite the fact that the Avodah-Zarah of a Yisrael cannot become Bateil - the house, in the middle case, is Mutar, even if it was a Yisrael Mumar who did the cementing or the carving.

(c)In the last case, the house too, will be Asur - if he designates it for the use of the Avodah-Zarah.

9)

(a)Rav rules that someone who prostrates himself before a house - renders it Asur.

(b)We prove from there that - in Rav's opinion, 'Talush ve'li'Besof Chibro' is considered Talush in this regard.

(c)We resolve Rav with our Mishnah, which refers to 'Ban'o', and not 'Hishtachaveh lo' - by establishing that there are actually two cases that are Asur, one mentioned by the Mishnah, the other, by Rav ...

(d)... and the reason that the Tana lists three cases and not four is - because the Din in the two cases is the same (and he is concerned with the diverse Dinim, not with all the possible cases).

(e)In both of the above cases, if it was a Nochri who built the house - then his Bitul helps, whereas if it was a Yisrael, then it can never become Bateil.

10)

(a)The Tana also lists three cases of 'stones'. Someone who ...

1. ... mines a stone on behalf of Bimus (a platform that is built specifically for the idol to be placed on it (but which is worshipped in its own right) - it is forbidden (even though the idol was never actually placed on it).

2. ... cements a stone that is already built (Siyud), or carves pictures on it (Siyud/Kiyur), for Avodah-Zarah - needs only to remove what he did, for the stone to become permitted.

3. ... places an idol on it which he then removes - the stone is also permitted.

(b)In the last case, the stone will become forbidden - if he designates it for the Avodah-Zarah.

11)

(a)When Rebbi Ami says (with regard to the middle case) 've'Hu she'Siyed ve'Kiyed be'Gufah shel Even', he means that - the Siyud ve'Kiyud/Kiyur only needs to be removed if it was actually done on the stone itself, but not if it was done on the cement that covers it (though it is not clear how this distinction will work with regard to 'Siyud' [covering it with lime]).

(b)The problem with Rebbi Ami's ruling from the equivalent case of a house in previous Mishnah is that - there the pictures are done in the cement that overlays the bricks, and not on the bricks themselves (and the Tana compares the case of the worshipped stones to that of the worshipped house).

(c)We reject the suggestion that there too, the Tana is speaking when he does the Siyud and the Kiyud/Kiyur between the rows of bricks (which is considered part of the house itself) - because the Tana states S'tam 'Siyed ve'Kiyed', implying wherever it is.

(d)So we conclude that Rebbi Ami is speaking with regard to Bitul - meaning that he is not coming to preclude Siyud ve'Kiyud/Kiyur on the cement (which is also Asur), but to point that Siyud ve'Kiyud/Kiyur even on the stone does not require Bitul, and the stones become permitted by merely removing what he did.

(e)We would otherwise have thought that -he made Siyud and Kiyud/Kiyur on the stone, it is considered as if mined it initially on behalf of Avodah-Zarah.