Answer: It is therefore understandable why the Gemara said this was specifically dealing with statues of kings, and it did not merely say statues (as statues of other people of stature (i.e. mayor) in the government are not worshipped).

Proof: The fact that people worship statues of kings more than those of other people in government is also indicated by the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi states that if it is certain that it is a statue of a king, everyone agrees it is forbidden. If it is certain it is of other people in government, everyone agrees it is permitted. Our Mishnah is discussing a case where it is unclear who is represented by the statue. Rebbi Meir understands that it is presumed to be a king, while the Chachamim say it is presumed to be from other people in government.

Question: According to Rabeinu Tam's explanation, there is a slight difficulty. When the Gemara later says that the Mishnah (41a) is presumed to be Rebbi Meir, it could have said that it is even according to the Rabbanan, as according to Rabeinu Tam they only permitted a statue of a king.

Explanation #1: The Gemara seems to imply that the argument between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan is whether or not we make a decree in other places due to one place.

Explantion #1 (cont.): This is the meaning of the Gemara. The argument is regarding the statues of the villages that are worshipped in his place, as Rebbi Meir decrees that all statues of villages are forbidden due to that place. Even though the other villages do not bow down to such statues, and they are merely made for beauty, we consider them forbidden.

Explanation #1 (cont.): The Rabbanan do not decree that other villages are forbidden (due to this place). However, everyone agrees that the statues in the cities are permitted, as nobody in the cities bows down to these statues, and they are merely for beauty. We certainly do not make a decree that the cities should be forbidden due to the villages.

Question #1: However, the Gemara's terminology when it asks, "Is there any opinion that the statues in villages are made for beauty?!" seems difficult. Both the Rabbanan and Rebbi Meir agree that in most villages, the statues are only made for beauty. Rebbi Meir only forbade the statues of other villages due to a village where they were worshipped!

Question #2: There is an additional question. When the Gemara says that statues of cities are made for beauty according to everyone, this implies that while they agree about this regarding cities, they argue about whether the statues are for beauty or worship in villages.

Question #2 (cont.): This, however, is incorrect. Everyone agrees that in the village close to Rebbi Meir they made statues to bow down to them. The Gemara should have said that the argument is regarding villages. Rebbi Meir says that we decree other villages are forbidden due to this village, while the Rabbanan say we do not make this decree regarding other villages. However, in cities these statues are certainly made for beauty. This means that they are permitted everywhere. In cities, even in the area of Rebbi Meir, these statues were for beauty.

Explanation #2 (cont.): It therefore appears that the argument is regarding villages. Rebbi Meir forbids these statues in all villages because he understands that they are made for worship. The Rabbanan permit the statues because they understand they are made for beauty. However, everyone agrees that the statues in the cities are made for beauty, and are therefore permitted.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Gemara asks, is there anyone who says that the statues of the villages are made for beauty? In other words, how can you think that the argument regarding the villages has the Rabbanan arguing on Rebbi Meir that the statues in the villages are for beauty? They are clearly for worship!

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rather, if the argument was taught, it should read as follows. The argument is regarding the cities, as they are made for beauty. Rebbi Meir forbade all of the statues in the cities. He made this decree for most of the cities, where they do not worship their statues at all, due to the minority of cities where these statues are worshipped once a year. The Rabbanan do not make a decree regarding the majority of cities due to the minority. However, everyone agrees that the statues of the villages are made for worship.

Explanation: This is because the world is round.

Proof: This is as the Yerushalmi states that Alexandrus Mokdon went to the heavens until he saw the entire world looking like a ball and the ocean looking like a plate. This means that he saw the Ukiyanus Ocean which surrounds the entire world.

Opinion: The Ri understands that Shmuel, who holds that broken pieces of an idol are permitted (for benefit), also holds like Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish (Reish Lakish) that an idol that is broken by itself is permitted. Reish Lakish, who holds that an idol that broke by itself is permitted, also holds that if someone finds broken pieces of an idol they are permitted. This is all based on the same reasoning.

Opinion (cont.): This is also implied later, as Rebbi Yochanan asked a question on Reish Lakish from the Mishnah that says that if someone finds broken pieces of a statue (not necessarily used for idolatry), it is permitted. This implies that broken pieces of an idol are forbidden. This shows that if an idol broke by itself, it is forbidden.

Opinion (cont.): Reish Lakish holds that broken pieces of an idol are permitted, because he holds that an idol that broke by itself is permitted. This is the meaning of Shmuel's statement, "Even broken pieces of an idol." This means that not only are broken pieces of a statue permitted due to a Sfeik Sfeika (double doubt), as it is doubtful that they were worshipped (Safek 1), and even if they were worshipped they could have been nullified (Safek 2), but even broken pieces of an idol that was clearly worshipped are permitted.

Opinion (cont.): If we know that if an idol broke by itself the pieces are permitted, broken pieces in general should be permitted, as most broken pieces of an idol come about because the idol was nullified. It is much more common that an idolater broke it or it broke by itself than a case where a Jew breaks it (which does not nullify it). If a Jew would have broken it, he would not have left it, but rather would have destroyed it totally.

Opinion (cont.): The Gemara then asks, doesn't the Mishnah say broken pieces of statues? This implies that this is only the law regarding statues, because there is a Sfeik Sfeika, but it is not the law regarding broken pieces of an idol! If we would think that broken pieces of an idol are also permitted, the Mishnah should have stated that this is the law regarding broken pieces of an idol, as this is more novel (and permissive). Rather, being that the Mishnah did not give the case of a broken idol and instead gave a case of a broken statue, it implies that specifically pieces of a statue are permitted. Broken pieces of an idol are forbidden as they were certainly worshipped, and who knows whether or not it was nullified?

Opinion (cont.): The Gemara concludes that even broken pieces of an idol are permitted, and there is no reason to differentiate between the two cases. The reason why the Mishnah only gave a case of broken pieces of a statue is because it wanted to say the second (stringent) part of the Mishnah regarding finding a statue of a hand or foot that it is forbidden from benefit.

Opinion (cont.): One can clearly tell if something is a broken piece of a statue or not by whether or not it is holding something in its hand. They are forbidden according to Rebbi Meir because they are not totally broken. This is as Shmuel stated that the case is when they are on their base.

Opinion (cont.): If it would have said a case of broken pieces of idols first, I would think that only a statue of a hand or foot that is clearly an idol is prohibited. This is because when it was whole it was being worshipped constantly. There are indeed many people who worship a hand or foot when it is attached to something. Accordingly, even when it is separated it should not be nullified, as it is a whole entity (see Bach) on a base.

Opinion (cont.): However, statues that are not even worshipped according to Rebbi Meir more than once a year, and it is possible to say that the hand and foot was not worshipped itself even when it was attached to something else, if so, when they became detached they were nullified. This is why the Mishnah states a case of broken pieces of statues.

Question: Even so, the Mishnah should have taught us the leniency regarding broken pieces of idols, as the lenient side is always stronger (i.e. more important, and therefore stressed before the stringencies)!

Answer: In our case, certainly the side of stringency forbidding a statue of a hand or foot is better. This is because there is much reason to permit it as we have explained, because we would think that their status is that they were nullified, being that even when they are attached they were never worshipped.

Answer (cont.): The fact that the Mishnah did not say the leniency regarding broken pieces of idols did not make us lose anything, because we can learn this from our Mishnah.

Implied Question: The Gemara here does not give the answer that Reish Lakish gave later to the question of Rebbi Yochanan. That answer was that the Mishnah wanted one to deduce that an entire statue is forbidden, implying that the Mishnah is like Rebbi Meir. (Why doesn't the Gemara use this answer to defend Shmuel?)

Answer: This answer is not pertinent as an answer for Shmuel. Shmuel is referring to the Mishnah, and saying it is like Rebbi Meir. He is saying that according to Rebbi Meir, even though it is a novelty that pieces of idols are permitted, it is not such a novelty that broken pieces of statues are permitted. Rather, it must be that (the Mishnah wants to teach us that) even broken pieces of idols are permitted, as there are many doubts indicating it should be permitted, as we explained (in the previous Tosfos).

Explanation: The Gemara asks, being that even broken pieces of idols are permitted, why didn't the Mishnah state a case of pieces of idols? Why did it state instead, "broken pieces of statues?" There is no reason to omit the greater novelty that broken pieces of idols are permitted just to tell us that Rebbi Meir holds statues are forbidden, as we are not discussing statues!

Explanation (cont.): This is why the Gemara answers that it is better to omit the leniency regarding idols in order to teach the prohibition against statues themselves, such as the statue of a hand or foot, as we have explained that they are similar to broken pieces. However, the Gemara later establishes that Rebbi Yochanan understands the Mishnah according to the Rabbanan. If so, the Mishnah clearly did not need to discuss broken pieces of statues themselves (which the Rabbanan clearly hold are permitted), as I will explain later (see Tosfos 41b, DH "Eisivei").

Question: Even without Shmuel's statement, we should still ask that the first part of the Mishnah and the second part of the Mishnah are contradictory. The first part says that broken pieces of statues are permitted, while the second part says that a statue of a hand or foot (which are essentially broken statues) are forbidden!

Answer: It is possible to answer that without Shmuel's statement I would think that broken pieces of idols are forbidden. The second part of the Mishnah would be understood well as referring to broken pieces of idols.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that they are on their base (a separate piece).

Question: The term "found" is difficult according to this explanation, as this implies that they were found in the marketplace or field (not on a separate base).

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam therefore understands that they have a wide base where they sit by themselves (i.e. as part of the statue), and they do not look like broken pieces, but rather they look as if they were made this way.

Explanation: It appears that the Gemara asks as follows. This Mishnah is said without an author, and Rebbi Meir is not mentioned in it. Accordingly, we can establish that the Mishnah is like the Rabbanan. The case here could be regarding statues that have nothing in their hands, as Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan argued regarding that law.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara is deducing in its question that the Mishnah is understandable according to Rebbi Meir who forbade statues, as the Mishnah would be required to say that the pieces of statues are permitted. However, according to the Rabbanan, if the statutes themselves are permitted, isn't it obvious that pieces of statues are permitted? Rather, it must be that the purpose of the Mishnah is to deduce that broken pieces of idols are prohibited.

Implied Question: We cannot answer as we did previously that even broken pieces of idols should be permitted, and that the only reason this was not stated explicitly was in order to discuss the case of finding a hand or foot etc. (which are forbidden). (Why not?)

Answer: This is because this answer is only according to Rebbi Meir who forbids regular statues. However, according to the Rabbanan the question is still in place. Why did the Mishnah state broken pieces of statues if not to deduce that broken pieces of idols are forbidden?

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara answers that you should not say that the Mishnah is according to the Rabbanan, and that we are supposed to deduce that broken pieces of idolatry are forbidden. Rather, you should say that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Meir, and that we should deduce that statues themselves are forbidden. However, broken pieces of idols are indeed permitted.

Implied Question: Being that the Mishnah is teaching us that Rebbi Meir's opinion is correct, one cannot ask what we asked earlier that according to Shmuel let the Mishnah say a case of broken pieces of idols, and we would know that this would certainly be the law regarding broken pieces of statues. (Why not?)

Answer: If the Mishnah would have stated a case of broken pieces of idols, we would not have been able to deduce that whole statues themselves should be permitted. We would only have been able to deduce that an idol is forbidden, which everyone agrees is the law.

Implied Question: One cannot ask that being that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Meir, why don't we say that the reason the Mishnah only gave a case of broken pieces of statues was in order that it could state the next case regarding a statue of a hand or foot etc., as we stated earlier.

Answer: This seems somewhat difficult. The Mishnah is coming to teach a law regarding broken pieces. Why would it ignore a law regarding broken pieces of idols (which is its subject) in order to teach a law at the end of the Mishnah? However, now we are saying that the Mishnah is not coming to teach a law regarding broken pieces (and is merely teaching that the law is like Rebbi Meir regarding whole statues). However, according to Shmuel the implication of the Mishnah seems to be regarding broken pieces being permitted, as we explained earlier (see Tosfos 41a, DH "Hu ha'Din").

Implied Question: According to Rabeinu Tam (see Tosfos 40b, DH "uvi'Andreti") who explained that the Rabbanan hold that all statues are forbidden even though they are not holding anything in their hand besides for the Andreti (statue of a king) that stands by the entrance of the country, it appears that the Gemara could have asked a question from the Rabbanan themselves.

Implied Question (cont.): In fact, one should be stringent with the broken pieces of forbidden statues just as they are stringent with the broken pieces of idols. According to the Rabbanan, it must be that the broken pieces of forbidden statues are permitted, as it is clear that they are not more stringent than Rebbi Meir. If so, why don't we say that from the Rabbanan themselves we should understand that broken pieces of idols are permitted? If statues are forbidden but their pieces are permitted, so too we should say that idols are forbidden but their pieces are permitted! (Why does the Gemara have to say that based on Rebbi Meir's opinion we can figure out the opinion of the Rabbanan?)

Implied Question (cont.): Rashi also deduced that it was possible to ask from the Rabbanan themselves, and from the statues that have a stick or bird in their hands, whose pieces are permitted.

Answer: However, we do not see the Mishnah explicitly permitting broken pieces of statues that were forbidden.

Question: This is asked as a difficult question. Doesn't a common lenient doubt take away from a certain status? If it was an uncommon doubt, even a possible prohibition would not take away from a certain lenient status, as is apparent from the Gemara in Chulin (10a) regarding skin that only might cause a knife to be nicked etc. (See Gemara there at length.)

Observation: The Yerushalmi says that this can be explained in a case where one died in the "Yishuv," meaning he was of settled mind when he died (and therefore would have made sure that his fruits were tithed).

Explanation: This was in order that the grain should not see the house, in order that it should not become liable for tithing. This is as we state in Bava Metzia (88a) that untithed grain is not obligated to be tithed until it sees the house, meaning after it has been processed.

Explanation (cont.): If he brought it in with its shell, he can eat from it in a temporary fashion. This is as the Tosefta and the Gemara in Beitzah (13a) states that if someone brought in stalks in order to make a dough, he can eat from them in a temporary fashion and is exempt.

Explanation (cont): When our Gemara mentions the eating of his animal, it is because all eating of an animal is considered temporary, even when it eats in a permanent fashion. This is as stated in the Mishnah in Pei'ah (1:6), that one can give to his domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird to eat from his grain (without tithing) until the grain has been piled up in the silo.

Explanation (cont.): However, if the grain saw the house or even if it was piled in the silo or field and he has no intent to bring it to the house, it is considered permanent as far as its obligation for Ma'aser. One cannot eat temporarily from such grain, and he cannot even feed it to his animal. This is because one is forbidden to have benefit from untithed grain in a way where he is using up the grain (by having this benefit).

Explanation (cont.): Our Gemara (which permits the grain of this dead Chaver) depends on the possibility that the Chaver brought the grain in with its shell.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that mid'Rabbanan it would still be forbidden to eat from this grain in a permanent fashion. (Why, then, is this a blanket leniency?)

Answer: This is because a doubt regarding Ma'aser pushes aside a certain Rabbinic prohibition.