1)

(a)The Beraisa permit Reuven's animal that was worshipped - if Shimon worshipped it.

(b)Another Beraisa states 'Eizehu Ne'evad, Kol she'Ovdim osah Bein be'Shogeg, Bein be'Meizid, Bein be'Oneis u'Bein be'Ratzon', which we initially explain to mean that - Shimon prostrated himself before Reuvens's animal, thereby forbidding it on Reuven (posing a Kashya on the first Beraisa).

(c)Rami bar Chama therefore tries to interpret 'Bein be'Oneis' to mean that - Nochrim forced Reuven to prostrate himself before his own animal.

(d)Rebbi Zeira however, queries Rami bar Chama's explanation from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei - 've'la'Na'arah Lo Sa'aseh Davar' (which teaches us the principle 'Oneis Rachmana Patreih').

(e)Rava solves the problem by reconciling two Pesukim in Emor. He establishes the Pasuk ...

1. ... "va'Chai bahem" - by someone who worships idols in private (see Tosfos DH 'Ha be'Tzin'ah').

2. ... "ve'Lo Sechalelu es Sheim Kodshi" - by someone who does so in public ('be'Farhesya' [which is also how the second Beraisa is speaking]), and whose actions are therefore effective even be'Oneis.

2)

(a)Yet another Beraisa rules that Bimsi'os of Nochrim (on which Yisre'elim were forced by decree to sacrifice) following the nullification of the decree - remain forbidden.

(b)Rava himself refutes the proof from here for his previous ruling (regarding 'Oneis be'Farhesya') - because the reason here may well be because of the likelihood that some Yisre'eilim actually worshipped it on purpose.

(c)According to Rav Ashi - it is (not only likely, but) inevitable that, among all the forced worshippers, there is at least one Mumar (apostate), who, seeing Yisrael at the losing end, worshipped it on purpose.

3)

(a)Chizkiyah establishes 'Bein be'Oneis' in the earlier Beraisa to mean that someone else performed an act of worship on his animal against his will, rendering the animal forbidden (despite the fact that the animal was worshipped against the will of the owner) - because the Tana is speaking in a case where the worshipper poured wine between the animal's horn's as an act of worship to his god.

(b)When Rav Ada bar Ahavah queried this 'Hai Ne'evad hu, Hai Bimus be'Alma hu?' he meant that - this would still not render the animal Asur, seeing as in spite of the act of worship, he neither worshipped the animal nor did he turn it into a sacrifice.

(c)Rav Ada bar Ahavah therefore amended Chizkiyah's interpretation of 'Bein be'Oneis' to read that - he worshipped (not his god, but) the animal by pouring wine between the animal's horns.

(d)And he supports this explanation with a statement of Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who said (when he came from Eretz Yisrael) that - despite the fact that if Reuven prostrates himself before Shimon's animal, he does not render it Asur, if he actually performs an act on the animal, he does render it Asur.

4)

(a)Rav Nachman announced that - someone should report to Ula that Rav Huna had effectively already issued the identical ruling in Bavel (as that which he [Ula] had quoted in the name of Rebbi Yochanan).

(b)Rav Huna in fact, ruled that, in a case where Shimon's animal was crouching in front of an image - and Reuven Shechted one Si'man (one of the two pipes that constitute a Kasher Shechitah), he renders the animal Asur.

(c)We cannot learn this from ...

1. ... the Pasuk in Yechezkel forbidding Kohanim (whom the kings of Yisrael had forced to serve as priests for Avodah-Zarah), to serve any more in the Beis-Hamikdash, to serve any more in the Beis-Hamikdash - because we cannot learn a K'nas on inanimate objects from one issued against people, who are intelligent.

2. ... the stones of the Mizbe'ach, which the Chashmona'im hid, because the Greeks had worshipped them - since there we found a Pasuk in Yechezkel, which declared them Hefker (as Rav Papa explained earlier).

(d)Rav Huna derived his ruling - from the vessels which Achaz forsook, and which Chizkiyahu and his Beis-Din declared forbidden forever.

(e)We do not apply the principle 'Ein Adam Oser Davar she'Eino she'lo' to those vessels - because an act was performed with the stones, as we explained above.

5)

(a)When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that even though someone who worships Karka does not render it Asur - he does render it Asur if he digs holes in it for the sake of his god.

(b)When Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that even though someone who worships an animal does not render it Asur - if he exchanges it for an Avodah-Zarah, he does.

(c)And when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he cited a Machlokes between Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan with regard to Chalipei Chalipin of Avodah-Zarah. One of them learns from the Pasuk in Va'eschanan "Vehayisa Cheirem Kamohu ki Cheirem Hu", one of them learns from the word ...

1. ... "Vehayisa" that - whatever one creates from an Avodah-Zarah, even Chalipei Chalipin, becomes Asur; whereas the other learns from the word ...

2. ... "Hu" that - it is Asur, but not its Chalipei Chalipin.

(d)The first Tana learns from "Hu" to preclude (not Chalipei Chalipin of Avodah-Zarah, but) - Chalipei Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem.

(e)The second Tana counters that we do not need a Pasuk to preclude Chalipei Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem, because we already know it from Avodah-Zarah and Shevi'is - based on the principle 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad, Ein Melamdin' (if the Torah teaches a principle in two places, it must be to preclude it elsewhere).

6)

(a)We learn from ...

1. ... the Pasuk "Ki Yovel hi, Kodesh Tih'yeh lachem"that - Shevi'is is compared to Kodesh, whose Kedushah is transferred to whatever one purchases it with.

2. ... the word "Tih'yeh" that - whereas with Kodesh, the Kodesh article then becomes Chulin, by Shevi'is, it too remains Kodesh.

(b)Consequently, if someone swaps Sh'mitah fruit ...

1. ... for a piece of meat - both have the Din of Sh'mitah and must be eaten before the time of 'Bi'ur'.

2. ... for a piece of meat, the piece of meat for a fish, the fish for a bottle of wine and the bottle of wine for a bottle of oil - then the fruit remains Kadosh, and the bottle of oil becomes Kadosh too, whereas the meat, the fish and the wine go out to Chulin.

(c)The Tana who requires "Hu" to preclude Chalipei Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem argues with the Tana who learns this from 'Sh'nei Kesuvin ha'Ba'im ke'Echad' (from Avodah-Zarah and Shevi'is) - in that he holds 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad, Melamdin'.

7)

(a)When the Romans asked the elders why, if Hash-m does not want idolatry, He does not ...

1. ... destroy them, they replied that - seeing as they worship the sun, moon and stars, how could Hash-m destroy something which the world cannot do without? He will not destroy His world on account of fools.

2. ... at least destroy those idols that the world does not need, they replied that - doing so would only lend credence to those who worship the sun,, moon and stars, claiming that their gods escaped the Divine wrath.

(b)The Beraisa (quoting the elders) adds that - the world continues to take its course, and the fools will have do give Din ve'Cheshbon (reckoning) for their deeds.

(c)The Beraisa then gives a parable of someone who ...

1. ... steals a Sa'ah of wheat and plants it in the ground - where, according to the questioner, the seeds ought not to grow, only the world continues to run its course ... .

2. ... commits adultery with another man's wife - where, according to the questioner, she ought not to become pregnant, only the world continues to run its course ... .

(d)Resh Lakish commented on this final point - that not only do they allow anyone access to form Hash-m's stamp of creation, but they also trouble Him to add His seal (by forming the baby against His will [Kevayachol]).

8)

(a)Based on the Pasuk "Ki Hash-m Elokecha Eish Ochlah Hu", a philosopher once asked Rabban Gamliel - why Hash-m directs His zealousness against those who worship idols and not against the idols themselves.

(b)Rabban Gamliel replied with a parable of a prince who called his dog after his father - even going so far as to swear 'by the life of his dog, Aba'. Is it not obvious, he concluded, that it is with his son with whom the king will be angry, and not with the dog.

(c)The philosopher become angry with Rabban Gamliel - for comparing his god to a dog, when he was really a genuine deity.

(d)And to prove it - he related the episode of a conflagration that burned his entire city, with the sole exception of his god's house of worship.

9)

(a)Rabban Gamliel responded to the philosopher's tale - with the parable of a king whose country rose in rebellion. With whom would the king engage in battle, with those who were living or with those who were dead?

(b)The philosopher, horrified at now hearing his god referred to as a corpse as well, asked Rabban Gamliel why Hash-m did not then destroy it from the world - to which Rabban Gamliel replied like the Tana'im mentioned above, namely, that most Avodah-Zaros comprise bodies that the world needs ...

(c)... adding that sometimes they even worship people. Should Hash-m perhaps kill them too?