Opinion #1: Rashi explains this refers to a bandit.

Opinion #2: The Tosefta has the text, "Mosek" (instead of "Motzek") referring to someone who gathers olives.

Explanation: This Kohen was a fool, as he is not even allowed to become impure to relatives that are Nefalim, as for him to become impure it must be to someone who is like his father and mother (who are not Nefalim).

Explanation: A maidservant becomes impure when giving birth.

Proof: This is also implied in Shabbos (135b), as the Gemara states that if someone took a maidservant and she became pregnant with him and subsequently gave birth, this (child) is a person who is considered a "Yelid Bayis" who has a Milah at eight days.

Observation: The rule is that as long as one's mother is not impure due to a birth, he is not given a Bris at eight days.

Observation: The first part of the Beraisa is that a pit in which Nefalim are thrown is considered pure. This means that they are used to throwing Nefalim in this pit. Regarding this pit, the Beraisa continues to discuss the incident that occurred with the maidservant of the Meitzik (see Tosfos above, DH "Shel Meitzik").

Explanation #1: It is possible that the pit was a public domain if it was not ten Tefachim deep. Even so, this is not considered a doubt regarding impurity in the public domain (which is always ruled leniently) if the animals could not have dragged out the bodies, as the pit is narrow. Accordingly, his head would fill up the entire pit.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, the case is where the pit was a private domain which was ten Tefachim deep.

Implied Question: One cannot ask that even if they would have certainly dragged him out we should suspect that they did so under the legs of the Kohen, and that such impurity is considered to go up. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because most holes where Sheratzim are found have a hole that is a Tefach high (and the impurity is therefore contained there).

Explanation #3: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that the pit is in a private domain, while the feet of the Kohen are in a public domain.

Explanation: It must be that the case is where the pit was checked (the Maharsha explains this means that animals were there beforehand) before she threw it in there, being that it was normal for Nefalim to be thrown in there.

Explanation: This is difficult according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish.

Observation: The fact that the Gemara did not answer that this case is different because the main part of the idol is still extant indicates that Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that even if the main part of the idol is extant, the pieces are still permitted when they are not taken off in a normal fashion.

Observation (cont.): This is also implied later (42b), as he himself asks a question on Rebbi Yochanan from the case of hitting (the nest off) with a stick, even though the main part of the idol is extant in that case.

Question: All of these questions require study, as we can obviously answer all of them with Rava's explanation! (Why does the Gemara keep asking these questions?) [Study Tosfos in Shabbos 43a, DH "Kofeh Alehah" and 123b, DH "Eisivei Abaye."]

Explanation: Rashi explains that we assume that a Nochri did this, as it is a Sfei Sfeika. It is possible it was never even worshipped! (Even if it was worshipped, it is possible that a Nochri nullified it by cutting off its head.)

Proof: His explanation is correct. If you would think that we assume this statue was clearly worshipped, we should ask a question on Rebbi Yochanan regarding how this can be permitted.

Proof (cont.): Even if we do not suspect that it was cut off by itself, as this is more uncommon than being broken by itself, most of the cutting is not prohibited just as regarding idolatry we say that most breakings are prohibited.

Proof (cont.): Rather, here the chances are even. If it was cut by a Nochri it is permitted, and if it was cut by a Jew it is prohibited. Even so, it should not be permitted, as Rebbi Yochanan holds that even a common possible leniency does not take away from a status of certain prohibition. Certainly here, where it is uncommon that a Nochri will cut off the head of the idol and there is therefore not a common possible leniency to take away from a certain status of prohibition, he should be stringent.

Question: If there is only a possibility it was worshipped, the second part of the Beraisa which states that if a Jew definitely cut the head off it is prohibited should also prove difficult. Why is this different from broken pieces of statues which Rebbi Yochanan admits are permitted due to a Sfeik Sfeika? (The Rashash explains the Sfeik Sfeika. It is unclear if it was worshipped, and even if it was worshipped, when the Nochri sees that his idol had his head chopped off he will very possibly nullify it.)

Answer: It is more understandable to be lenient regarding broken pieces of statues, as their breaking is more easily attributed to a Nochri than a Jew. If the Jew would have wanted to break it, he would have destroyed it. If it broke by itself, it is more common that the Nochri would nullify it when he finds it, as he will say that if it could not save itself, it will certainly not save him! These are two reasons to be lenient regarding broken pieces of statues.

Answer (cont.): However, when the Jew cut off the head there is only one reason to be lenient. It is possible to say that when the Nochri finds the head cut off, he will nullify the idol. However, this reason itself is not enough for Rebbi Yochanan to be lenient, even if we are unclear if it was ever worshipped.

Question: This is difficult. What is the question? Perhaps that case is different, as the Nochri shaved it down. This is why it is permitted even if the rest of the idol is extant. However, if a Jew shaved it down or it broke by itself , it is possible that it is forbidden because the main part of the idol is still extant.

Answer: It is possible to answer that the Gemara's question is as follows. When the statue is shaved down the main part of the idol is extant, and we say that if the Nochri does this it is permitted. Even if a Jew would do this it should be permitted, were it not for Rava's decree, as Rebbi Shimon Lakish himself stated earlier.

Explanation: This implies that an idol that broke by itself is permitted. The reason that one cannot usurp Hekdesh according to Torah law in this case, as we state later, is because the case is where he is using the growths of the tree/plant that grew after it had been dedicated to Hekdesh. This Beraisa holds that one cannot usurp these growths.

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that one should not go up on the Asheirah tree and take the nest, as this would mean he is using (i.e. benefiting from) the Asheirah tree.

Opinion #2: It seems that one should specifically hit the nest off with a stick, even if he can take it from the tree by merely reaching out his hand and not having to climb on the tree. This is order that people should not say that he is now breaking off branches from the Asheirah tree.

Opinion: Rashi explains the case is where the bird broke off branches from the tree to make its nest.

Observation: This explanation is correct according to our Gemara's understanding that Rebbi Avahu is coming to answer that you should not learn from this a leniency regarding idolatry.

Implied Question: However, in Meilah (14a) the text of Rebbi Avahu's statement is that the bird brought wood from elsewhere to make its nest. When Rebbi Avahu says that he should hit the chicks and the entire nest is permitted, he means that the wood itself is permitted.

Implied Question (cont.): The novelty of his statement is that if he is coming to take the chicks he should not take them with his hands, meaning that he should not climb or lean on the tree, thereby having benefit from it. (This contradicts our understanding of Rebbi Avahu in our Gemara. What is the correct explanation of Rebbi Avahu?)

Answer: It is possible to say that Rashi's explanation is not difficult, as there is another version of Rebbi Avahu in Me'ilah (ibid.) which agrees with Rashi's explanation.

Explanation #1: This is because they need the tree. Rashi explains that the Rabbanan therefore decreed that they are forbidden from benefit, just like the Asheirah tree itself.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is possible to say that the Rabbanan decreed that he should not take the eggs because we suspect that he will climb the tree in order to take the eggs, as he is worried that they might fall down (and break).

Implied Question: It is also correct to say that even a statue of a Darkon is forbidden. (Why do we have to discuss vessels that have a Darkon on them?)

Answer: Rather, the Mishnah gives a case where it is on vessels to teach us that even so (i.e. when they are on vessels) people bow down to them.

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that this is according to the Rabbanan (40b) who say that all other statues are permitted.

Implied Question: According to Rashi's own opinion this is inaccurate. He himself explained that Rebbi Meir only forbids an Andreti, not other statues. If so, this is even according to Rebbi Meir.

Opinion #2: This (the logic of the implied question) is indeed the explanation of the Rashbam.

Opinion #3: According to Rabeinu Tam that an Andreti is referring to the leniency of the Rabbanan, but everyone agrees that other statues are forbidden, one must say that other statues are forbidden when they are not on vessels. However, when they are on vessels they are clearly decorative, besides for these.

Opinion #3 (cont.): This is why the Gemara asks later, is the face of a man forbidden?! In other words, the question is that it is not forbidden on vessels, as a statue of a person in general was forbidden in the Mishnah according to all opinions.

Explanation: The Rashbam explains that this means that Rav Sheshes took rules of Beraisos and used them like material to tie together and include many things in one rule. (The Avodah Berurah explains that the Beraisa quoted by Rav Sheshes was not taught as a Beraisa, but rather its terminology was put together based on Rav Sheshes understanding of many different Beraisos.) This is as better explanation than that of Rashi.