Avodah Zarah 50a (נ.) — the Talmud in English

Now,

with regard to those nearby as well,

when they are very close to Markulis itself, they likewise do not disagree, since

one may say

that because of their proximity

one fell from it,

that they fell from it, and therefore

everyone agrees

that they are

forbidden—

They disagree with regard to

ordinary stones, which are

distant

within four amot of Markulis, and it is clear that they did not fall from it —

Before the Gemara explains their disagreement, it asks:

How can it be said that they are distant?

But “beside Markulis,” it teaches

in the Mishna! We learned that they are “beside” it, implying that they are nearby.

The Gemara answers:

What

is the meaning of

“beside”?

Beside its four amot,

within its four-amot area.

And over what do they disagree?

Rabbi Yishmael holds:

The gentiles who worship Markulis customarily

make a small Markulis beside a large Markulis.

Therefore, when there are

three resembling Markulis,

whose form resembles that of Markulis, they are

forbidden,

not because they fell from the large Markulis, since they are distant from it, but because they themselves constitute a small Markulis. But if there are

two

stones, they are

permitted,

since they are neither a small Markulis nor fallen stones from the large Markulis—

The Sages hold: They do not

the gentiles

make a small Markulis beside a large Markulis.

Therefore,

it makes no difference whether there are three or whether there are two:

they do not constitute Markulis by themselves; rather, if they

appear to be associated with it,

being very near it, they are

forbidden,

because they fell from Markulis,

but those that do not appear to be associated with it

are permitted,

since they did not fall from it.

Summary: These stones are not broken pieces of idolatry; rather, they either fell from Markulis, or, according to Rabbi Yishmael, constitute a small Markulis beside a large Markulis, or are ordinary roadside stones.

If it is known that they fell from the Ashera, they are certainly forbidden. Even if it is known only that they are very near it, they are forbidden, since it is reasonable to assume that they fell from it. When they are distant—but within four amot—the Sages and Rabbi Yishmael disagree: The Sages permit them even when there are three, while Rabbi Yishmael forbids them when there are three, since they constitute a small Markulis, and permits them when there are two.

The Master said

Rabbi Yohanan:

When it is known that they fell from it, everyone agrees

that they are forbidden.

And he raises a contradiction,

as the Gemara cites a beraita from which it appears that Rabbi Yishmael and the Sages disagree when it is known that the stones fell from it.

We learned in a beraita:

Stones that fell from Markulis,

if they

appear to be associated with it—

they are forbidden; those that do not appear to be associated with it—

they are permitted.

And Rabbi Yishmael says: Three are forbidden; two are permitted.

This beraita states “stones that fell,” implying that it is known that they fell. The reason the Sages permit them when they do not appear to be associated with it is that they are broken pieces .

This is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan’s statement that they do not disagree when it is known that the stones fell from it.

The Gemara answers:

Rava said: Do not say

“that fell”;

rather, say [Rashi’s version:

teach]

that one should read

“that were found”

beside Markulis, and it is not known that they fell from it.

The Gemara asks:

And

if

Rabbi Yishmael

holds that two

within four amot

are permitted,

but

the following

beraita

teaches otherwise:

Rabbi Yishmael says: Two within its domain,

within four amot—

are forbidden; three, even when distant,

are forbidden.

It follows that nearby stones are forbidden according to Rabbi Yishmael.

The Gemara answers:

Rava said: It is not difficult.

There is no contradiction between Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation of the Mishna and the beraita.

Here,

the beraita that forbids two is discussing a case of

one domain,

where there is no raised mound interrupting the area between Markulis and the stones found within its four amot—

In such a case, even two are forbidden, both according to Rabbi Yishmael and according to the Sages, because they appear associated with it, since they are within its four amot. According to this conclusion, they disagree when the stones are distant. The Sages permit them because they are distant, while Rabbi Yishmael forbids three because the gentiles make a small Markulis beside a large one.

Here,

our Mishna, in which we learned that Rabbi Yishmael permits two within four amot, is discussing

two domains,

where there is an indication that they did not fall from it.

And what is the case?

How is this recognized?

There is a height,

a mound interrupting

between

the stones

and between

Markulis.

Therefore, according to the Sages, even three are permitted, since in their view the issue is only whether they fell from it or not, and since a mound interrupts between them, they are permitted. According to Rabbi Yishmael, they are forbidden when there are three, even though they did not fall from it, because they constitute a small Markulis beside a large Markulis.

In summary: The Sages permit them whenever there is an indication that they did not fall from it. This can occur in two ways: a. They are distant. b. A mound interrupts between them.

Rabbi Yishmael forbids them in both of these forms when there are three.

When they are within four amot and no mound interrupts between them, they are forbidden according to both Rabbi Yishmael and the Sages, even when there are two, and certainly when there are three .

According to this summary, the Gemara has not retracted Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation of our Mishna; rather, it added an interpretation that the case involves a mound interrupting between them.

The Gemara asks about Rava’s statement that when the stones appear associated with it, even two are forbidden:

And

if

a Markulis such as this

in this form

is there,

do the gentiles make such a thing?

But a beraita teaches

the following:

These are the stones of Beit Kulis [Markulis]:

one stone

here, one stone there, and one upon them,

half resting on one and half on the other.

It follows that only three stones are forbidden.

The Gemara answers:

Rava said: When that

beraita

was taught,

it was referring

to

the description of

the essence of Markulis,

its beginning. Subsequently, just as stones are added to it, so they make a small Markulis beside it, and worship it even when it does not consist of three stones.

The Gemara discusses whether Markulis can be nullified like all idolatry or not. The reason for distinguishing it from other idolatry will be explained in the Gemara.

The Gemara first relates an incident:

At the house of King Yannai,

the house of Yannai, one of the Hasmonean kings during the Second Temple period,

was destroyed;

their house was destroyed.

Gentiles came

and

set up there

the place

a Markulis.

Other gentiles came

who

did not worship

and

removed it,

taking its stones,

and paved roads and thoroughfares with them.

There were Sages

who

abstained,

abstaining from these roads paved with Markulis stones and not walking upon them, so as not to benefit from idolatry.

And there were Sages who did not abstain,

and they did not refrain from walking upon them.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

If even [one Sage known as]

“the son of the holy ones” walks upon them,

and we

and we

should abstain from them?!

The Gemara explains:

Who is

the Sage known as

“the son of the holy ones”?

Rabbi Menahem son of

Simai. And why

why

was he called

known as

“the son of the holy ones”?

Because even at the image on a coin

the figures engraved on coins

he would not look,

for he was stringent .

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason

for

the one who abstained

among the Sages who refrained? The gentiles had nullified it when they paved roads and thoroughfares with its stones.

He held

that since they are merely offerings to idolatry, they are not nullified by the gentile’s nullification, even though the idols themselves can be nullified —

For this is what was said

as he said:

Rav Giddel said that Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef said that Rav: From where is it derived that an idolatrous offering can never be nullified?

As it is stated: [Psalms 106] “

[Psalms 106] "

They joined themselves to Baal Peor and ate the sacrifices of the dead,”

and we expound:

Just as a dead person can never be nullified

and the prohibition against deriving benefit from him lasts forever,

so too, an idolatrous offering can never be nullified.

Therefore, the Sages withdrew from them, since they are forbidden in benefit.

And the one who did not withdraw said:

These stones are not forbidden as an idolatrous offering, because

I require it to be akin to the rites performed inside the Temple.

An idolatrous offering applies only when one performs before an idol an offering resembling the sacrifices brought inside the Temple, such as slaughter and the other rites performed in the Temple —

but there is none

whereas throwing stones, although throwing them is forbidden and one is liable to death for it—

Nevertheless, since there is no idolatrous rite like it in the Temple, the prohibition against deriving benefit as an idolatrous offering does not apply to the stones.

For the entire law of an idolatrous offering is derived from the verse [Exodus 22]: “One who sacrifices to the gods shall be destroyed, except to Hashem alone.” That is to say: Every sacrifice is exclusively for Hashem, and when one sacrifices to idols, he shall be destroyed and it becomes forbidden to derive benefit from it. Therefore, from this verse one can derive only slaughter and the other rites distinctive to the worship of Hashem in the Temple .

These stones, however, are forbidden because they themselves become idols, as will be explained, and not because they are an idolatrous offering.

And since they became forbidden as idols, they can be nullified when the gentile nullifies them, like other idols that can be nullified. Therefore, the Sages, including Rabbi Menaḥem ben Simai, did not withdraw from them.

In this regard, the Gemara cites a beraita:

Rav Yosef bar Abba said: Rabbah bar Yirmeya happened to come

to our locale,

and he came and brought a beraita in his hand

and it stated:

A gentile who brought stones from Markulis and paved roads and theaters with them (alternative version

bringing with him a beraita, in which we learned:

A non-Jew who brought stones from Markulis and paved roads and theaters with them

:

and streets

precise location of column) they are

permitted

to derive benefit from, because the gentile nullified them.