Question: This is difficult. Doesn't Rebbi Akiva require this Pasuk to derive, "Destroy (break) - and afterwards (after you capture the land) cause it to be lost" as does Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who holds like Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili? (Why is Rebbi Akiva in our Gemara deriving a different lesson from this Pasuk?)

Question (cont.): The fact that Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah seemingly holds like Rebbi Yosi can be presumed from Rebbi Akiva's reply, "I will judge before you etc..." Rashi in our Mishnah also implies that Rebbi Akiva holds like Rebbi Yosi.

Answer: While Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah is indeed defending Rebbi Yosi's position, he does not agree with that position.

Question: However, there appears to me to be a slight difficulty. Earlier, the Gemara said that Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah requires the Pasuk (of Kol Eitz Ra'anan, see 45b) for the teaching stated by Rebbi Akiva (in the Mishnah). This implies that they understand the Pesukim in the same fashion!

Answer: The Gemara earlier means that he requires this teaching according to the way Rebbi Akiva understood the position of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili (but he does not agree with Rebbi Akiva's position).

Explanation: This means that even an animal itself (the Bach says the text should read "an animal owned by the person himself") is not forbidden to a regular person if he did not do an action to it.

Implied Question: The Gemara later says (54a) that if someone bows down to the animal of his friend, he did not forbid the animal. (This implies that if he bowed down to his own animal, he would cause it to become forbidden, unlike what we have just stated.)

Answer #1: The truth is that he would not forbid his own animal as well. The reason why the Gemara said this regarding his friend is to teach that the animal does become forbidden if anyone, even his friend, does an action to it.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara teaches us that if it is his friend's animal it is not even forbidden to Hash-m (i.e. as a Korban), being that it is not his (as opposed to a person who bows down to his own animal, which causes it to become forbidden to be used as a Korban).

Explanation: Rashi here explains, as I quoted his opinion earlier, that the case of planting something that is eventually worshipped is when it was planted as a seed.

Explanation (cont.): This is a quote from Rashi: "From a dry tree - Although it has changed from how it was originally created, even so the Rabbanan who argue on Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah would not say it is forbidden. The Tzad ha'Shaveh is that they (this tree and animal) do not have involvement of a person in making them for idolatry, as the involvement in the original planting is not considered involvement according to the Rabbanan, as it was not a tree at that time when he planted a seed."

Explanation (cont.): Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who considers this involvement and forbids this, will only say that a tree is permitted if it grew by itself. Even according to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah it is not forbidden as long as an action was not done to the tree. These are the words of Rashi.

Question: Even if the tree grows by itself, the tree that existed before it and whose seed caused this tree to grow was planted by people!

Answer: It is possible to answer that the case is regarding a tree that grew by itself from the six days of creation, for example a tree in a forest.

Observation: However, Rashi's explanation is difficult, as I explained earlier.

Explanation: It appears to me that if someone is careful in understanding Rami bar Chama's question, he will see that Rami bar Chama understands that it is possible to differentiate between animals and things attached to the ground. This is why he was unsure whether or not there is a law of something being considered worshipped if it was attached to the ground.

Explanation (cont.): His question regarding the Machshirin (secondary items used in bringing the sacrifice, such as the Mizbe'ach) of the sacrifice is conditional on the answer to the first question. If we answer the first question by saying it is permitted, certainly one can use it for the Machshirin (i.e. sell it to raise funds to build the Mizbe'ach)! However, if we say that it is forbidden, what is the law regarding using it for Machshirin?

Explanation #1: He wants to say that a house that is connected to the ground is forbidden. (How is this apparent from the Pasuk quoted in this question?) We should understand the Pasuk as follows, "You should not bring an exchange (i.e. payment for a prostitute) of a house." This means that if he would pay her a house for her services, it is forbidden to proclaim this house Hekdesh for the building of the Beis Hamikdash. These are the words of Rashi.

Explanation #1 (cont.): He changed his terminology from that which he used earlier regarding Rava's statement. Rashi explained earlier that there is a prohibition against using things that are attached (and were worshipped as an idol) for Hash-m, and even for the Machshirin of Korbanos (i.e. the Mizbe'ach). This is because the Pasuk says, "Bais" which implies even if it is used for building the Beis Hamikdash. It seems that Rashi gave a good explanation based on our Gemara, and it is easy to understand this (see Avodah Berurah at length for the meaning of this last comment).

Question: However, his explanation here that an exchange of a house is called connected to the ground is difficult. The Gemara later says that Rav Yehudah (on 47b our text is Rav, not Rav Yehudah) considers a house unattached to the ground, because it is something unattached that ended up being attached (and is therefore still considered unattached).

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that the explanation is if you would understand that the word house teaches that he gave her trees and stones to build a house. It would then be forbidden to dedicate them to Hekdesh. Regular trees and stones that people build with are usually connected to the ground in their place (and therefore should be considered attached).

Answer: Alternatively, one can answer the explanation of Rashi that the Torah said house. Being that it did not differentiate between a house that was built from loose materials or a house that was carved out of a cave, which does not contain anything that was ever unattached to the ground, it implies that both are considered attached to the ground.

Question: This is difficult. How do we know that something connected to the ground is forbidden? We know this from Esnan (the payment given to a prostitute). We should say that we cannot derive anything more than is said by Esnan. By an Esnan, it is obvious that changing it into something else takes off this status, as the Gemara derives in Bava Kama (65b), "Them - and not what it was changed into." (Why, then, does the Gemara ask whether or not an attached thing that was worshipped can undergo a change and be permitted?)

Answer: According to Torah law, it is obvious that a change causes this thing to be permitted, just like an Esnan. However, the Gemara's question is according to Rabbinic law, as there is reason to forbid such idolatry even though it was changed.

Observation: This implies that changing does not matter regarding the mother (i.e. the animal that was originally forbidden).

Implied Question: Regarding change causing acquisition in Bava Kama (93b), according to the opinion that change indeed causes acquisition, the Mishnah states that if someone stole a cow and she gave birth, the theft must go back the way it is, and he only pays the value of the cow. This implies that change helps regarding the mother as well!

Answer: One can differentiate that this only helps in order to make it easier for people to repent, not regarding bringing it as a Korban on the Mizbe'ach.

Explanation: An animal has a boundary (of when it becomes sterile when a man has relations with it), as stated earlier (24b). (Tosfos is explaining how an animal can have relations with a man and yet still have offspring. Tosfos answers this question by quoting the Gemara earlier, which states that an animal only becomes sterile if a man has relations with it when it is under three years old.)