תלמוד על עבודה זרה 3:1

If he transported for him amphora against amphora¹⁰The language is not clear and the proposed interpretations are unfounded. It seems that the worker is not paid as a worker for his time but as a contractor by the piece, and is not paid in money but receives an (empty) amphora.
In the entire paragraph it is equally possible not to read the sentences as apodictic statements but as questions. If he is paid in land, is the land forbidden? Etc., you fine him in his own amphora up to the amount of his wages¹¹That he might be forced to sell the amphora and destroy coins in the equivalent of his wages.. If he paid him his wages in land. Everywhere you are saying that land is not forbidden¹²Halakhah 3:6, Note 125., here it is forbidden. If he paid him his wages in an animal. Everywhere you are saying that anything breathing is not forbidden¹³Halakhah 3:6, Note 140., here it is forbidden. If he gave him anything as his wages¹⁴Which clearly is worth more than the amount due for his wages., is everything forbidden or only up to the amount of his wages? If he worked for him for goodwill, do you impound his property in the value of his wages?

Rav said, a pedestal⁷⁷Cf. Chapter 3:10, Note 231. is not annulled⁷⁸If the pedestal was made especially for an idol, removing the idol does not automatically make the pedestal permitted for usufruct. This implies that the pedestal is treated not as an appurtenance of the idol but as a separate idol.. Therefore if one annulled it it is annulled⁷⁹In the Babli, 53b, this is the opinion of the Galilean authorities R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish, opposed by Rav and Samuel.. The opinions of Rav seem inconsistent. There he says⁸⁰Halakhah 3:10. Since Rav deduces from the statement of the Mishnah about stones used for a pedestal rules about appurtenances of idols it follows that he treats the pedestal as an appurtenance., if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden, and here he says so? Here if he burned incense, there if he did not burn incense⁸¹A pedestal which was not used as an altar is an appurtenance; if it was used as an altar it is an idol.. And even if you are saying, in both cases if he burned incense, Rav follows his opinion since Rav said, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden⁸²Obviously this quote cannot be correct since it was the basis of the question raised; one must refer here to the statement of R. Abba in the name of Rav in Halakhah 3:10: “This implies that what is cast for idolatry is immediately forbidden.” The difference is whether the stone was quarried or the tree felled for the purpose of building a pedestal for idolatry or whether the material was bought on the market..

HALAKHAH: “How does one make it insignificant,” etc Rav said, for his benefit, both it and its shavings are permitted; for its benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted. Samuel said, for its benefit both it and its shavings are forbidden, for his benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted²⁸⁰Cf. Note 266. In the Babli, 49b, the opinions given here as those of Rav and Samuel are reported as those of students of Rav.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, for its benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted.