Clarification (Part 1): Which cannot adopt the status of an idolatry, as Rashi explains ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... Nevertheless, whoever worships it is subject to Sayaf (death by the sword) - as we learned in a Beraisa in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah 46a) 'If Nochrim worship mountains, the mountains remain permitted, whereas the worshippers are Chayav Sayaf'.

Precedent: Likewise the Gemara states in Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin 61a) that it is similar to someone who prostrates himself before a mountain, where the mountain remains permitted, whereas the worshipper receives Sayaf'.

Refuted Question: One cannot ask that since it is not called a god, why is the worshipper Chayav Sayaf.

Refutation #1 (Part 1): Because it is specifically with regard to 'Ibud' (the obligation to destroy images) that the Torah does not consider it a god, since the Torah reveals in Devarim (12) "Abeid Te'abdun ... (es Eloheihem al he'Harim ... )".

Refutation #1 (Part 2): Alternatively, it is called a god, and we learn from the Pasuk that it is specifically with regard to 'Ibud' (the obligation to destroy images) that the Torah does not consider it a god, as it is written in Devarim (12) "Abeid Te'abdun ... es Eloheihem al he'Harim ... ", from which we now Darshen that one must destroy the gods that are on the mountains, but not the mountains that are their gods, and that they worship.

Implied Question: Why are the sacrifices brought to the mountains then permitted ...

Answer (Part 1): Because we learn it from Keilim, since the Torah writes "Abeid Te'abdun ...

Answer (Part 2): ... which we establish in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Avodah-Zarah, 51b) by vessels that were used to worship idols, and with regard to which the Torah specifically forbids the gods that are on the mountains, but not the mountains themselves (the Keilim that were used to worship them).

Refutation #2: Alternatively, the reason that the worshipper is Chayav Sayaf, even though it is not called a god, is because the Torah reveals that it is, with regard to those who worship the Mazalos, when it writes in Parshas Shoftim "And he goes and worships ... the sun and the moon (where it concludes that he is Chayav Sekilah [Rashash]), even though the Mazalos are fixed to the sphere of the Heaven ...

Implied Question: ... and the reason that the Tana then rules here that if somebody worships the sun or the moon, it is considered Zivchei Meisim is ...

Answer: ... because he is speaking where he worships the angels that lead the sun and the moon (as we have learned in the Midrash, that there are twelve angels (Midrash Koheles says there are eight) who lead the sun ... ), which are detached.

Rashi Disagrees (Part 1): Rashi however, does not learn this way. He establishes the latter Pasuk with regard to what is detached ...

Rashi Disagrees (Part 2): ... and according to him the Gemara is proving that even though animals do not become forbidden on account of Avodah-Zarah, they are nevertheless considered gods to forbid sacrifices that are brought to them.

Question (Part 1): On what grounds is Tikroves Har different than Tzipuy Har (what overlays the mountains), which is a Machlokes Tana'im in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah 45a) ...

Question (Part 2): ... as the Mishnah states there - that what is on the mountains is forbidden, as the Pasuk writes "Do not covet the silver and gold that is on them"; Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili says "Their gods are on the mountains"; 'and not that the mountains are their gods!' ...

Question (Part 3): ... and the Gemara establishes the Machlokes as to whether 'Tzipuy Har ke'Har' (Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili) or not (the Tana Kama).

Answer (Part 1): It speaks there where they also worshipped the Tzipuy, despite which Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili permits it, seeing as one only generally worships it together with the mountain, to which it is Bateil - and the Tafeil cannot be stricter than the Ikar.

Answer (Part 2): In fact, the Rabbanan would have allowed it for this reason, were it not for the Pasuk of "Lo Sachmod"; or because it has been worshipped, and the Pasuk is merely an Asmachta.

Question (Part 1): The Gemara implies at the beginning of Perek Kol ha'Asurin (Temurah 28b) that the Tzipuy of animals is permitted to a Hedyot, and it establishes the Pasuk "Lo Sachmod Kesef ve'Zahav Aleihem" with regard to something that is not an animal; whereas the animal itself, since it is permitted, so too is the Tzipuy that covers it?

Question (Part 2): In fact, it seems from the Gemara there that it would even be permitted to Gavohah as well, had the Torah not written "min ha'Bakar"? And even if it is speaking where they did not worship it, why should the Din be different than Tikroves of Ba'alei Chayim, which is Asur?

Answer: Tzipuy is different, inasmuch as it is Bateil to the animal, and it is therefore as if one worshipped the animal itself, which is permitted because it is a living creature.

Proof that Tzipuy is Asur: It seems however, that Tzipuy of Ba'alei Chayim is Asur even to a Hedyot, since the Gemara asks there 'The reason (that the Tzipuy is Asur) is because the Pasuk includes it (when it writes "min ha'Bakar", 'Lehotzi es ha'Ne'evad'). Had it not, Tzipuy would be permitted. But does the Torah not write (in Re'ei) "And you shall destroy them from that place", 'whatever is made for their sake'?

Proof that Tzipuy is Asur (cont.): ... Now, why do we need to extrapolate from the fact that the Torah includes them? Even if it does, the question remains, why if it Asur to a Hedyot, since the Pasuk of "min ha'Bakar" is written in connection with Gavohah?

Proof that Tzipuy is Asur (concl.): ... We are therefore forced to say that it is forbidden even to a Hedyot, because, since the Pasuk comes to teach us that it is Asur at least to Gavohah, in which regard it is called Ne'evad, the Pasuk of "Lo Sachmod" comes to forbid Tzipuy, even though it is only Ne'evad with regard to Gavohah.

Question: Even though a mountain too is only considered Ne'evad regarding Gavohah, as is evident in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah 46b) 'If someone prostrates himself to a mountain, its stones are forbidden to be used for the Mizbe'ach, yet its Tzipuy is permitted ...

Precedent: Just as we learn Tikroves from Keilim, as we explained earlier. And this is not the place to elaborate further in this matter.

Explanation #1: It is not necessary to mention a case where the animal is standing, Rashi explains, since then the moment he lifted it up in order to make it crouch down he would acquire it and it would become his.

Objection #1 (Part 1): This is not correct however, because if one could not forbid something that one does not own, then picking up the animal would not acquire it to make it his either ...

Objection #1 (Part 2): ... as we see in a case where somebody steals something and the owner has not yet given up hope, where neither of them us able to declare the article Hekdesh, the Ganav because it is not his, and the owner, because it is not under his jurisdiction.

Objection #2: Furthermore, the Gemara later (on Daf 41a) queries Rav Nachman's ruling 'Ein Adam Oser Davar she'Eino she'Lo' from Menasech (which is effective). (According to Rashi) what is the Kashya from Menasech, seeing as he acquires the wine the moment he picks it up, as the Gemara explains in 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin 52b)?

Conclusion: Clearly then, with this (picking it up) it does not become his, and he (the Ganav) does not acquire it other than to become Chayav for Onsin?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that Rav Huna mentions 'Revutzah' to teach us that even though he did not make it crouch, and did not perform a major act on the animal, he nevertheless renders it Asur (See also end of following Dibur).

Refuted Explanation: One cannot explain that this is Davka in front of the Avodas-Kochavim - like the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava who says later (on Daf 41a) that the Isur of Nisuch Yayin is confined to where it is performed in front of the Avodah-Zarah - and that this extends to other Avodos ...

Refutation #1: ... because it would seem that Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava's ruling is confined to Nisuch, since nowhere do we find the term 'Lifnei Avodas-Kochavim' in connection with Shechitah (or any other Avodah).

` Refutation #2: Furthermore, why does the Gemara ask shortly 'Let him not be Chayav for Shechutei Chutz, since he is merely cutting dust'? There it is speaking where he did not Shecht in front of the Avodah-Zarah, and the animal does not become Asur, yet he is Chayav just like one is Chayav for worshipping a mountain?

Explanation: Clearly then, one is Chayav even not in the presence of the Avodah-Zarah ...

Implied Question: ... and the reason that Rav Huna mentions in front of the Avodas-Kochavim is ...

Answer #1: ... because that is how it is normally done.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is only because he is standing in front of the Avodas-Kochavim that we assume S'tam that he acted in the name of the Avodah-Zarah, even though he did not specifically say so; and we are speaking about a Mumar (an apostate).

Clarification: We can now say that Rav Huna mentions Revutzah inasmuch as it is not necessary to mention a case where he made the animal crouch down, where it is evident that he did what he did in the name of Avodah-Zarah; but even where it was already crouching, we assume that he Shechted in the name of Avodah-Zarah, seeing as we are speaking about a Mumar.

Clarification: The Gemara only proves from Ula that Reuven can forbid Shimon's animal through an act, but not that a minor one will suffice ...

Reason: ... since it may well be that Ula requires a major act, as the Gemara will explain shortly.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara will shortly say that Ula is referring to a minor act ...

Answer: ... that is because, according to Rav Huna, it cannot be major act; In his opinion, Ula must be talking about a minor act ...

Proof: ... because, if he required one Si'man, he should have said so (see Maharam).

Clarification (Part 1): The Tana is not concerned with the number, because if he was, he would have added a fourth case - namely, that it was also Yom-Kipur.

Clarification (Part 2): ... but he only lists cases that are a Chidush: It teaches us that he is Chayav because of Shabbos, even though the only positive Tikun is that one takes it out of 'Eiver min ha'Chai' ...

Clarification (Part 3): ... and ba'Chutz to Avodas-Kochavim is a Chidush, as is evident in the Sugya.

Question: Why is he Chayav for Shechutei Chutz, seeing as it is not acceptable inside the Azarah - because a Chatas ha'Of can only be brought as a Korban Yachid, and a Korban Yachid cannot be brought on Shabbos.

Answer: Seeing as Bedi'eved, in the event that the Kohen sprinkled the blood, it is accepted, as we find in the second Perek of Beitzah (20b), in connection with the case of 'The Lambs of Shavu'os that one Shechted not for their own sake or in the wrong time - one is indeed Chayav because of Shechutei Chutz ...

Source: ... because in 'ha'Shochet ve'ha'Ma'aleh' (Zevachim 109a) we learn from Pesukim to include le'Chiyuv all cases of Chutz which, had they been brought up on to the Mizbe'ach, would not need to be taken down ...

Implied Question: ... and even though if one Shechts 'Oso ve'es B'no' ba'Chutz one is Patur, since it is considered Mechusar Z'man (premature) ...

Answer: ... Shabbos is not considered Mechusar Z'man, since it is only because the Asei of Korban Yachid cannot override the La'av of Shabbos that one cannot bring it on Shabbos.

Clarification (Part 1): According to the second explanation of Rashi, that the Gemara is querying Rav Huna, who holds that a person cannot render Asur something that is not his, and that the Gemara therefore mentions 'Chatas', to preclude a Shelamim which does belong to him ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... we will have to say that the Gemara now holds like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who says that Kodshim Kalim belong to the owner ...

Clarification (Part 3): ... because according to the Rabanan, no Korban is ever considered one's own, as is evident from the last Perek of Zevachim (Daf 114a) where the Gemara asks 'Granted Rove'a, where he declared the animal Hekdesh and then raped it, but what will be the case by Muktzah and Ne'evad, seeing as one cannot render Asur something that is not his?

Clarification (Part 4): And the Gemara answers 'By Kodshim Kalim, according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili', implying that according to the Rabanan, there is no way that one can render a Korban forbidden.

Question (Part 1): This explanation is problematic however, since the Gemara will shortly ask from that Beraisa on Rebbi Nachman, who (also) holds that a person cannot render Asur something that is not his; And the Gemara subsequently extrapolates that, since we establish it by Chatas ha'Of - 'The reason (that he is Chayav three Chata'os) is because it is Chatas ha'Of; but any other Korban, this would not be the case?'.

Question (Part 2): What is the Kashya? Why can we not establish it by Chatas Beheimah, and the reason that the Tana mentions specifically Chatas is to preclude a Shelamim?

Answer (Part 1): Perhaps the Gemara is initially quite happy to establish it by Chatas Beheimah, as long as it has not thought of establishing it by Chatas ha'Of; where half the Kaneh (the wind-pipe) is Pagum ...

Answer (Part 3): ... but ultimately, the Gemara prefers the answer of Chatas ha'Of ...

Answer (Part 4): Because, if it was talking about Chatas Beheimah, and it was coming to preclude a Shelamim, it ought rather to have mentioned Olah, as Rashi explains.

Question (Part 1): This poses a Kashya on Rashi's first explanation, that the Gemara is not coming to ask on Rav Huna, why it does not teach us 'Zevach' (including Shelamim)?

Question (Part 2): In that case, how can the Gemara establish it by a major act? Surely, from the fact that it mentions 'Chatas', we infer that this is a proof for Rav Huna, who holds that even a minor act will suffice?

Answer: Perhaps we can answer that it mentions Chatas to teach us that even though he acquired it as an atonement, it is considered his to render it forbidden even via a minor act.

Clarification (Part 1): In Maseches Avodah-Zarah in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Daf 54a) with regard to the words of Ula mentioned earlier, where Rav Nachman said to them 'Tell Ula that Rav Huna already preempted your statement in Bavel!' ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... this is not to say that he holds like Rav Huna, but rather he (Ula) was not teaching them anything new, since Rav Huna had already taught it to them.

Question (Part 1): In the case in Avodah-Zarah (Daf 57b) where a Nochri came into the store, and there was wine in the bucket, into which the Nochri placed his hand and stirred it, and the owner arrived and in a fit of anger, emptied the bucket into a barrel ...

Question (Part 2): ... and the text there reads 'Rav Nachmen came to Mechuza and forbade the wine be'Hana'ah' ...

Question (Part 3): ... why did he forbid it, seeing as one person cannot render Asur somebody else's article?

Answer: According to the conclusion here, that even those who hold that one person can render forbidden somebody else's article, confines this to a Nochri, and Rav Nachman holds like the Tana Kama, the problem is solved ...

Question (Part 4): But according to what the Gemara currently thinks, that Rav Nachman holds like Rebbi Yehudah ibn Bava and not like the Tana Kama, the Kashya stands.