Explanation: It is a stronger question from the Beraisa than from the Mishnah, because it teaches Meshamsheha. This connotes that idolatry is like Meshamsheha, which does not have Tum'as Masa.

Explanation: In the first answer, it did not mention Meshamsheha, because they are included in "them, and not Heisetan (what moves them)" of the Beraisa. (Maharam - the simple reading of the Beraisa teaches their law);

However, Rav Ashi needed to explain that Meshamsheha - not they (what they moved) and not Heisetan (are Tamei). It is not included what the Beraisa taught "them, and not Heisetan."

Remark: Rav Pores' text does not say "Meshamsheha" in R. Akiva's words, for regarding Meshamshin, he does not argue with Rabanan.

Version #1 - Citation: In Zavim (4:5), the text in the Mishnah says "if a Zav is in one pan of a balance scale, and a Mishkav u'Moshav are in the second pan, if the Zav [was heavier, and] descended, they are Tehorim";

Explanation: [The Mishkav u'Moshav are] Tehorim from Midras. In any case they are Temei'im like Heiset of a Zav (what he moved).

Citation (cont.): If they [the Mishkav u'Moshav] descended, they are Temei'im. I.e. since the Zav is above, he is supported through them.

Version #2: Rashi's text is better (if the Zav descended, they are Temei'im. If they [the Mishkav u'Moshav] descended, they are Tehorim.) However, it is not found so [in the Mishnah], unless it is a Beraisa somewhere.

Explanation: He asks about [idolatry] of rings (it is made to be assembled and dissembled). However, if idolatry broke, it is obvious to him that it is not Metamei.

Implied Suggestion: It is obvious to him due to a Hekesh to Nidah, for if it broke, it totally resembles Nidah, which a person cannot return (a limb that separated from her).

Rebuttal: If so, why does it say above that he asks according to R. Akiva? Also according to Rabanan, he can ask, for they learn that idolatry does not apply to limbs from Nidah, only when it totally broke!

Conclusion: Rather, surely without [learning from] Nidah, it is obvious to him that if it broke, it is Tahor.

Explanation: He asks about Tum'ah, like Rashi explained, and also above he brings the argument of R. Akiva and Rabanan. However, regarding a Torah Isur, it is not applicable to learn from Nidah;

Even though it is Asur b'Hana'ah, he asks about Tum'ah mid'Rabanan, whether or not it goes away.

Inference: If a commoner can restore it, obviously it is forbidden, even according to Version #2, since we asked about Tum'ah when a commoner can restore it. If the Isur Hana'ah mid'Oraisa was permitted, all the more so it is not Metamei!

Question (Ri): In Avodah Zarah (49b), Rav and Shmuel argue about idolatry that broke by itself. Rav says that [the owner] must be Mevatel every chip. Shmuel says that idolatry needs Bitul only (if it broke) the way it grows;

The Gemara wanted to establish the argument to discuss fragments of fragments. It concludes that they argue about an idolatry consisting of rings, and a commoner can reassemble it. Rav holds that since a commoner can reassemble it... it is not Batel.

Inference: If a commoner cannot reassemble it, even Rav agrees that it is permitted!

Answer (Ri): There, they argue about small rings, that when they break off, it is like fragments of fragments, that the Gemara initially said [that they argue about this];

However, here they discuss big rings. Even Shmuel agree that they are Asur b'Hana'ah, even if a commoner cannot reassemble it.

Remark: This verse is written in Shoftim.

Question (Ri): Why didn't [the Gemara] bring the verse in Melachim (2:1) "Zevuv Ba'al Ekron"? And why does it bring a Beraisa?

Answer: If from that verse, one might have thought that it was a big fly, but it had the form of a fly. Therefore, it brings from here that it was small, like other flies, like the Beraisa teaches "and he put it in his pocket";

It expounds from "Ba'al Bris", which connotes that they made a covenant with it, that it will always be by them. Based on reasoning, [the Beraisa] says that this was Zevuv, the idolatry of Ekron.

Question (Ri): According to R. Akiva, if idolatry applies to limbs, we should establish this Hekesh to be lenient, to require a k'Zayis for limbs [to be Tamei]!

However, a complete idol [is Tamei] even if it is not a k'Zayis, just like a Mes. When it is complete, it is Tamei even if it is not a k'Zayis, like it says in Nazir (50a).

Answer: Regarding a Mes, even a complete limb that is less than a k'Zayis is Tamei, like it says there. If so, a limb is like the entire [Mes].

Question: Still, we can establish the Hekesh for one ring. Correspondingly in a Mes, it is not considered a limb!

Answer: [One ring,] even if it is a k'Zayis, it is not Metamei. It is like fragments of fragments.

Explanation: A boat is not special for Midras (sitting or lying on it), even though people constantly sit on it. In any case, it is primarily made for merchandise, and [the owner] says [to one who sits on it] "get up, and we will do our work!"

If this discussed a boat special for Midras, we would not learn from Sak, like we say in Bechoros (38a) that Midrasos were not equated to Sak.

Explanation: This that it is moved in the sea is not considered moving, since it moves primarily due to the water.