At his own cattle etc. This is not so, for a man does make forbidden property out of something which is not his when he commits an overt act to it, even as R. Hunah maintains (Hullin 41a), and so is this tradition established in Tract. Abodah Zarah (54b) according to law. Nevertheless, this applies only to an idolater, or to a converted Israelite, for, of any Israelite it can be said said that he intends only to tease him.¹

footnotes: ¹ Maimonides contends that the law is not decided in favor of R. Hunah's opinion; for in Hullin (54a) it is said that R. Nahman, R. Amram and R. Isaac contend that "no man can make forbidden property out of something which is not his. C.G.

Water carried out of a stream etc. If it belong to others it does not become forbidden, but if it be of individual ownership, though the wave carried it out, it is forbidden. The matter depends upon the controversy of the disciples of Rabbi Hiya and Rabbi Johanan, and because of the doubt as to the opinion thereon of the Rabbi Hiya's disciple the decision is to make it forbidden.¹

footnotes: ¹ Possibly Maimonides had the decision of the disciples of Rabbi Hiya, who made it permissive, and their contention prevails against Rabbi Johanan.C.G.

If he bowed down to one half of a pumpkin etc. It was not said "This base" (Hullin 128b) save concerning contamination of idolatry, but it was not said concerning the making of it forbidden property, as it does not become forbidden property on account of a base. ¹

footnotes: ¹ This is only a matter of interpreting the text of the Talmud (Ibid.), as it makes no mention as to what the disqualification of the other half of the pumpkin refers, and Rashi (Solomon Izhaki) gives two interpretations. Maimonides was justified in selecting the major, as contamination of idolatry is among the enactments of the Post-Biblical era. See Mishnah Torah, Book Ten, V. 6,1. C.G.

But if he can not replace etc. This thing is not clear; for if that one needs nullification all of the fragments need nullification. But here is a subject concerning an idol constructed of joints, those joints were broken in two, and are like half members of a body; thus, if a non-artisan can not restore it it needs no nullification, but if the non-artisan can restore it, it is not considered broken up and each and every particle thereof must be nullified.¹

footnotes: ¹ This subject is a basis for the controversy of Rabbi Simeon Ben Lakish and Rabbi Johanan, as well as of Rab and Samuel (Abodah Zarah, 41b; Ibid. 49b). Maimonides sustains Rabbi Johanan, C.G.