Avodah Zarah 50

במקורבות נמי דאיכא למימר מיניה נפל דברי הכל אסורות כי פליגי במרוחקות

Furthermore, everyone agrees that also in the case of stones that are near the stone pile dedicated to Mercury, with regard to which it can be said that they fell from it, they are prohibited. Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis disagree only when the stones are distant.

והא בצד מרקוליס קתני מאי בצד בצד ארבע אמות דידיה

The Gemara challenges: But the mishna teaches that the stones are at the side of Mercury, indicating that they are nearby. The Gemara explains: What is meant by the term: At the side of Mercury? It means at the side of its four cubits.

רבי ישמעאל סבר עושין מרקוליס קטן בצד מרקוליס גדול שלש דדמיין למרקוליס אסורות שתים מותרות רבנן סברי אין עושין מרקוליס קטן בצד מרקוליס גדול לא שנא שלש ולא שנא שתים נראות עמו אסורות שאין נראות עמו מותרות

The Gemara clarifies the dispute: Rabbi Yishmael holds that at times, idol worshippers initially construct a small stone pile dedicated to Mercury at the side of a large stone pile dedicated to Mercury. Therefore, three stones, which resemble a complete pile dedicated to Mercury, are prohibited. Two stones, which do not resemble a stone pile dedicated to Mercury, are permitted. Conversely, the Rabbis hold that idol worshippers do not construct a small stone pile dedicated to Mercury at the side of a large stone pile dedicated to Mercury. Therefore, the halakha is not different in a case where there are three stones, and it is not different in a case where there are two stones. In both cases those stones that can be seen together with the pile dedicated to Mercury are prohibited, as they may have fallen from it, whereas those that cannot be seen together with the stone pile are permitted.

אמר מר בידוע שנשרו ממנו דברי הכל אסורות ורמינהי אבנים שנשרו מן המרקוליס נראות עמו אסורות שאין נראות עמו מותרות ורבי ישמעאל אומר שלש אסורות שתים מותרות אמר רבא לא תימא שנשרו אלא אימא שנמצאו

§ The Master said: In a case where it is known that these stones fell from it, everyone agrees that they are prohibited. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement from his statement presented in a baraita: With regard to stones that fell from a pile dedicated to Mercury, those that can be seen together with it are prohibited; those that cannot be seen together with it are permitted. And Rabbi Yishmael says: Three stones are prohibited, but two stones are permitted. The baraita indicates that Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis also disagree where it is known that the stones fell from the stone pile. Rava said: Do not say in the baraita: Stones that fell from a pile. Rather, say: Stones that were found adjacent to the pile. There is no certainty that they fell from the pile.

וסבר רבי ישמעאל שתים מותרות והתניא רבי ישמעאל אומר שתים בתפיסה לו אסורות שלש אפילו מרוחקות אסורות

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yishmael actually hold that two stones that are found adjacent to the pile are permitted? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael says: Two stones that are found in the area of the pile dedicated to Mercury are prohibited. Three stones are prohibited, even if they are found at a distance.

אמר רבא לא קשיא כאן בתפיסה אחת כאן בשתי תפיסות והיכי דמי דאיכא גובהה ביני וביני

Rava said: It is not difficult. Here, in the second baraita, it is referring to a case where both the pile and the adjacent stones are in the same area, in which case the stones are forbidden. There, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where they are in two adjacent areas, in which case they are permitted. And what is considered two adjacent areas? This is referring to a case where there is an elevated area between them, and evidently the stones did not fall from the pile.

ומרקוליס כהאי גוונא מי הוי והא תניא אלו הן אבני בית קוליס אחת מכאן ואחת מכאן ואחת על גביהן אמר רבא כי תניא ההיא בעיקר מרקוליס

The Gemara asks: And are stones that are merely adjacent to each other in this way considered a pile dedicated to Mercury? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: These are the stones of a place of worship dedicated to Mercury: One stone is situated on one side and one is situated on the other side, and one is situated atop of them, but not where the stones are merely adjacent to each other? Rava said: When that baraita is taught, it is with regard to the main pile of stones dedicated to Mercury, but the stones that are added to it are not necessarily arranged in this way.

בי ינאי מלכא חרוב אתו גוים אוקימו ביה מרקוליס אתו גוים אחריני דלא פלחי למרקוליס שקלינהו וחיפו בהן דרכים וסטרטאות איכא רבנן דפרשי ואיכא רבנן דלא פרשי

§ The Gemara relates: The house of King Yannai was destroyed, and gentiles came and placed stones dedicated to Mercury in it. Later, other gentiles who did not worship Mercury came and took those stones and paved paths and streets with them. There were Rabbis who withdrew from these paths, and there were other Rabbis who did not withdraw from these paths.

אמר רבי יוחנן בנן של קדושים מהלך עליהן ואנן נפרוש מהן מאן ניהו בנן של קדושים רבי מנחם ברבי סימאי ואמאי קרו ליה בנן של קדושים דאפילו בצורתא דזוזא לא מיסתכל

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The son of holy ones walks on them. Should we withdraw from them? The Gemara asks: Who is the person referred to as the son of holy ones? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Menaḥem, son of Rabbi Simai. And why did they call him the son of holy ones? They did so because Rabbi Menaḥem would not even gaze at the form on a coin, as it was sometimes an idolatrous symbol.

מאי טעמא דמאן דפריש סבר לה כי הא דאמר רב גידל אמר רב חייא בר יוסף אמר רב מנין לתקרובת עבודה זרה שאין לה בטילה עולמית שנאמר ויצמדו לבעל פעור ויאכלו זבחי מתים מה מת אין לו בטילה לעולם אף תקרובת עבודה זרה אין לה בטילה לעולם

The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the one who withdraws from those paths? He holds in accordance with that which Rav Giddel says that Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef says that Rav says: From where is it derived that with regard to an offering brought in idolatrous worship, there can never be any nullification of its prohibited status? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “They joined themselves to Baal of Peor, and ate the offerings to the dead” (Psalms 106:28). Just as the prohibited status of a corpse has no nullification, and it is forever prohibited to derive benefit from it, so too, the prohibited status of an offering brought in idolatrous worship has no nullification ever.

ומאן דלא פריש אמר בעינא כעין פנים וליכא

And the one who does not withdraw from those paths says: In order for idol worship to prohibit an offering I require the offering to be like those offerings sacrificed inside the Temple, and there is no parallel to this offering in the Temple service, as stones are not brought as offerings.

אמר רב יוסף בר אבא איקלע רבה בר ירמיה לאתרין ואתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה גוי שהביא אבנים מן המרקוליס וחיפה בהן דרכים וטרטיאות

Rav Yosef bar Abba said: Rabba bar Yirmeya happened to come to our locale, and when he came he brought the following baraita with him: In the case of a gentile who brought stones from a pile dedicated to Mercury and paved paths and theaters with them,

מותרות ישראל שהביא אבנים מן המרקוליס וחיפה בהן דרכים וסרטיאות אסורות ולית נגר ולא בר נגר דיפרקינה

they are permitted, as the gentile nullified their prohibited status. In the case of a Jew who brought stones from a pile dedicated to Mercury and paved paths and streets with them, they are prohibited. And there is neither a carpenter [naggar] nor a son of a carpenter who can resolve this, i.e., no one can resolve the difficulty inherent in this statement, not a Torah scholar, and not even a scholar who is the son of a scholar.

אמר רב ששת אנא לא נגר אנא ולא בר נגר אנא ופריקנא ליה מאי קושיא ליה דרב גידל בעינא כעין פנים וליכא

Rav Sheshet said: As for me, I am not a carpenter, nor am I the son of a carpenter, and yet I will resolve the difficulty. What is the difficulty that Rabba bar Yirmeya finds in the baraita? The baraita is difficult because of the statement of Rav Giddel, that the prohibited status of offerings brought in idol worship can never be revoked. This is not difficult, as in order for idol worship to prohibit an offering I require the offering to be like those offerings sacrificed inside the Temple, and there is no a parallel offering of stones in the Temple.

אמר רב יוסף בר אבא איקלע רבה בר ירמיה לאתרין ואתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה מתליעין ומזהמין בשביעית ואין מתליעין ומזהמין במועד

§ Rav Yosef bar Abba said: Rabba bar Yirmeya happened to come to our locale, and when he came he brought the following baraita with him: One may remove worms from a tree and place manure on a cut in a tree during the Sabbatical Year, but one may not remove worms or place manure on a cut during the intermediate days of the Festival.

כאן וכאן אין מגזמין וסכין שמן לגזום בין במועד בין בשביעית ולית נגר ולא בר נגר דיפרקינה

The baraita continues: Both here, in the case of the Sabbatical Year, and there, in the case of the intermediate days of the Festival, one may not prune the trees. But one may smear oil on the previously pruned tree on the place where one pruned it in order to prevent the tree from being damaged, both during the intermediate days of the Festival and during the Sabbatical Year. And there is neither a carpenter nor a son of a carpenter who can resolve this.

אמר רבינא אנא לא נגר אנא ולא בר נגר אנא ומפרקינא לה מאי קא קשיא ליה אילימא מועד אשביעית קא קשיא ליה מאי שנא שביעית דשרי ומאי שנא מועד דאסור מי דמי שביעית מלאכה אסר רחמנא טירחא שרי מועד אפילו טירחא נמי אסור

Ravina said: As for me, I am not a carpenter, nor am I the son of a carpenter, and yet I will resolve the difficulty. What is the difficulty that Rabba bar Yirmeya finds in the baraita? If we say that the difference between the intermediate days of the Festival and the Sabbatical Year poses a difficulty to him, this cannot be so. One cannot explain that Rabba bar Yirmeya is asking what is different about the Sabbatical Year that one is permitted to remove worms and place manure on a cut, and what is different about the intermediate days of the Festival that it is prohibited to do so, as this is not a valid question. Are they comparable? With regard to the Sabbatical Year, the Merciful One prohibited only agricultural labor, whereas other forms of exertion are permitted. With regard to the intermediate days of the Festival, even other forms of exertion are prohibited.

ואלא זיהום אגיזום קא קשיא ליה מאי שנא זיהום דשרי ומאי שנא גיזום דאסור מי דמי זיהום אוקומי אילנא ושרי גיזום אברויי אילנא ואסור

Ravina suggests: Rather, perhaps the difference between placing manure and pruning poses a difficulty to him. What is different about placing manure that it is permitted during the Sabbatical Year, and what is different about pruning that it is prohibited? Ravina rejects this suggestion: This is also not a valid question. Are they comparable? The purpose of placing manure is to preserve the tree, and therefore it is permitted, whereas the purpose of pruning is to enhance the tree, and therefore it is prohibited.

ואלא זיהום אזיהום קא קשיא ליה דקתני מתליעין ומזהמין בשביעית ורמינהי מזהמין את הנטיעות וכורכין אותן וקוטמין אותן ועושין להם בתים ומשקין אותן עד ראש השנה עד ראש השנה אין בשביעית לא

Ravina suggests: Rather, perhaps the contradiction between the aforementioned baraita with regard to placing manure and another mishna with regard to placing manure poses a difficulty to him, as the baraita teaches: One may remove worms from a tree and place manure on a cut in a tree during the Sabbatical Year. And one may raise a contradiction from a mishna (Shevi’it 2:4): One may place manure on the saplings, and one may bind their branches to the trunk so that they grow upright. And one may lop off their tops to promote their growth, and make shelters for them to shield them from the sun, and water them. All these actions are permitted until Rosh HaShana of the Sabbatical Year. One can infer that until Rosh HaShana, yes, one may place manure on the tree; but during the Sabbatical Year itself one may not do so.

ודלמא כדרב עוקבא בר חמא דאמר רב עוקבא בר חמא תרי קשקושי הוו חד לאברויי אילנא ואסור וחד לסתומי פילי ושרי הכי נמי תרי זיהמומי הוי חד לאוקומי אילני ושרי וחד לאברויי אילני ואסור

Ravina rejects this suggestion: But perhaps one can account for the apparent contradiction in a similar fashion to the explanation of Rav Ukva bar Ḥama, as Rav Ukva bar Ḥama says: There are two types of hoeing [kishkushei]. The purpose of one type is to enhance the tree’s health, and it is therefore prohibited. And the purpose of one type is to close up cracks in the ground, which is permitted, as it is done only to prevent the trees from dying and not to enhance their growth. So too, one may suggest that there are two types of placing manure: One type whose purpose is to preserve the trees, and is therefore permitted, and one type whose purpose is to enhance the trees, and is therefore prohibited.

ואלא סיכה אסיכה קא קשיא ליה דקתני סכין שמן לגזום בין במועד ובין בשביעית ורמינהי סכין את הפגין ומנקבין ומפטמין אותן עד ראש השנה עד ראש השנה אין בשביעית לא

Ravina suggests: Rather, perhaps the contradiction between the halakha in the baraita with regard to smearing oil and the halakha in another mishna with regard to smearing oil poses a difficulty for him, as the baraita teaches: One may smear oil on the previously pruned tree, on the place where one pruned it, both during the intermediate days of the Festival and during the Sabbatical Year. And one may raise a contradiction from the mishna (Shevi’it 2:5): One may smear oil on the unripe figs in the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle in order to accelerate their ripening, and similarly one may pierce them and fill the cut with oil to facilitate their ripening until Rosh HaShana. One can infer that until Rosh HaShana, yes, one may smear; but during the Sabbatical Year itself one may not do so.

מי דמי הכא אוקומי אילנא ושרי התם פטומי פירא ואסור

Ravina rejects this suggestion: That is also not a valid question. Are they comparable? Here, the purpose of smearing oil on the place where the tree was pruned is to preserve the tree, and therefore it is permitted. There, the purpose of smearing oil on the unripe figs is to enhance and enlarge the fruit and is therefore prohibited.

אמר ליה רב סמא בריה דרב אשי לרבינא בר ירמיה סיכה דמועד אזיהום דמועד קא קשיא ליה מכדי האי אוקומי והאי אוקומי מאי שנא האי דשרי ומאי שנא האי דאסור היינו דקאמר ליה לית נגר ולא בר נגר דיפרקינה

Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: The contradiction between the halakha with regard to smearing oil during the intermediate days of the Festival and the halakha with regard to placing manure during the intermediate days of the Festival poses a difficulty for Rabba bar Yirmeya. Since the purpose of this action is to preserve the tree, and the purpose of that action is to preserve the tree, what is different in this case that it is permitted, and what is different in that case that it is prohibited? This is the reason that Rabba bar Yirmeya said to him: There is neither a carpenter nor a son of a carpenter who can resolve this.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב עבודה זרה שעובדין אותה במקל שבר מקל בפניה חייב זרק מקל בפניה פטור אמר ליה אביי לרבא מאי שנא שבר דהוה ליה כעין זביחה זרק נמי הוה ליה כעין זריקה אמר ליה בעינא זריקה משתברת וליכא

§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In the case of an object of idol worship that is worshipped by means of a stick, e.g., by beating a stick on another object in order to produce noise, if one broke a stick before it, he is liable. If he threw a stick before it, he is exempt. Abaye said to Rava: What is different about the case where one broke a stick? In this case one is liable because it is similar to slaughtering an offering, which is a rite performed in the Temple; so too, in the case where one threw a stick, it is similar to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar. Rava said to Abaye: In order for a sacrificial rite to be similar to the sprinkling of blood, I require a form of throwing that scatters the offering, and that is not the case here.

איתיביה ספת לה צואה או שנסך לפניה עביט של מימי רגלים

Abaye raised an objection to Rava’s explanation from a baraita: One who fed [safat] an idol excrement, or who poured a chamber pot of urine before it as a libation,