Avodah Zarah 50a — the Talmud in English

And now,

with regard to the nearby ones as well,

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

it may be said,

one may say from their proximity that

it fell from it,

that they fell from it, and therefore

everyone agrees that they are

that they are

forbidden—

When they disagree, with regard to

ordinary stones, which are

distant

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

Before the Gemara explains their disagreement, we challenge it:

How is it possible to say that they are distant?

But it is taught, “beside Markulis,”

in the Mishna! We learned that they are “beside,” which implies that they are close?

The Gemara answers:

What

is the meaning

of “beside”?—

Beside its four cubits,

within its four cubits.

And in what do they disagree?

Rabbi Yishmael holds:

The manner of the gentiles who worship Markulis is that they

make a small Markulis beside a large Markulis. Therefore, when they are

Therefore, when there are

three that resemble Markulis,

whose form is like the form of Markulis, they are

forbidden,

not because they fell from the large Markulis, for they are distant, but because they themselves are a small Markulis. And if they are

two,

stones, they are

permitted,

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

The Rabbis hold: They do not

the gentiles

make a small Markulis beside a large Markulis. Therefore,

Therefore,

it makes no difference whether three or whether two,

they are not Markulis in itself; rather, if they

appear with it,

being very near, they are

forbidden,

because they fell from Markulis,

but those that do not appear with it are

permitted,

because they did not fall from it.

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

If it is known that they fell from the asheira, they are certainly forbidden. And even if it is known only that they are very close, they are forbidden, since it is reasonable that they fell from it. And when they are distant—but within four cubits—the Sages disagree with Rabbi Yishmael: the Sages permit even three, while Rabbi Yishmael forbids them when they are three, since it is a small Markulis, and permits them when they are two.

The master said

Rabbi Yohanan:

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

they are forbidden.

And we raise a contradiction,

the Gemara brings a beraita from which it appears that the disagreement of Rabbi Yishmael and the Sages is when it is known that they fell from it.

We learned in a beraita:

Stones that fell from Markulis,

if they

appear with it—

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

they are permitted.

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

In this beraita it says “stones that fell.” It follows that it is known that they fell, and the reason the Sages permit them when they do not appear with it is that they are broken pieces .

This is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan’s statement that they did not disagree when it was known that they fell from it?

The Gemara answers:

Rava said: Do not say

“that fell,”

but rather say [Rashi’s version:

teach]

teach]

it should be changed to

“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 cubits

are permitted?

And

but

it was taught

we learned another beraita:

Rabbi Yishmael says: Two within its domain

within four cubits—

are forbidden; three, even when distant—

are forbidden.

It follows that nearby two 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. For

here,

this beraita, which forbids two, is speaking

within one domain,

where there is no interruption of a high mound between Markulis and the stones found within its four cubits—

In this manner, even two are forbidden, both according to Rabbi Yishmael and according to the Sages, because they appear with it, since they are within its four cubits. And according to this conclusion, they disagree when they are distant. The Sages permit, because they are distant, while Rabbi Yishmael forbids three, because they make a small Markulis beside a large one.

Here,

our Mishna, in which we learned that Rabbi Yishmael permits two within four cubits, is speaking

of two domains,

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

And what are the circumstances?

And how will it be recognizable concerning them?

There is a height,

a mound interrupts

between

the stones

and between

Markulis.

Therefore, according to the Sages, even three are permitted, for according to the Sages the question is only whether they fell from it or not; and since a mound interrupts between them, they are permitted. But according to Rabbi Yishmael, they are forbidden if they are three, even if they did not fall from it, because it is a small Markulis beside a large Markulis.

In summary: the Sages permit in every situation in which there is an indication that they did not fall from it, and this can occur in two ways: a. they are distant; b. a mound interrupts between them.

Rabbi Yishmael forbids in these two situations when they are three.

And when they are within four cubits and no mound interrupts between them, they are forbidden both according to Rabbi Yishmael and according to the Sages, even when they are two, and all the more so when they are three .

According to this summary, the Gemara did not retract Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation of our Mishna, but rather added an interpretation that a mound interrupts between them.

The Gemara asks concerning Rava’s statement that when they appear with it, even two are forbidden:

And

if

a Markulis such as this

in this form

exists,

do the gentiles make such a thing?

But it was taught

we learned a beraita:

These are the stones of the House of Kulis

[Markulis]: one stone

here, one stone there, and one upon them,

half upon this one and half upon that one.

It follows that only three are forbidden?

The Gemara answers:

Rava said: When that

beraita

was taught,

it was taught

with regard to

the description of

the essence of Markulis,

its beginning. Afterwards, just as they add stones to it, so they make a small Markulis beside it, and they worship it even though it is not made of three.

The Gemara discusses whether Markulis has nullification like all idolatry or not. The reason for distinguishing between it and idolatry will be explained in the Gemara.

The Gemara first introduces an incident:

The house of King Yannai

the royal house of Yannai, one of the Hasmonean kings in the days of the Second Temple—

was destroyed,

their house was destroyed.

Gentiles came

the gentiles came,

set up there

they set up there

Markulis.

Other gentiles came

other gentiles came

who did not worship

who did not worship

Markulis, and removed them,

they took away its stones

and paved roads and streets with them.

There were Sages

there were Sages

who withdrew,

who withdrew from these roads paved with stones of Markulis, and did not walk upon them so as not to derive benefit from idolatry.

And there were Sages who did not withdraw,

and there were Sages who did not withdraw, and they walked upon them.

Rabbi Yohanan said: If even

[one Sage called]

“son of holy ones” walks upon them,

and we

and we,

should we withdraw from them?!

The Gemara explains:

Who is he

who is the Sage called

“son of holy ones”?

Rabbi Menahem ben

Simai; and why

and why

did they call him

they called him

“son of holy ones”?—

For even at the image of a coin

the images engraved on coins, he

would not look,

because he was stringent .

The Gemara discusses:

What is the reason

what is the reason

of those who withdrew,

of the Sages who withdrew? After all, the gentiles nullified it when they paved roads and streets with them.

He holds

that since they are only an offering to idolatry, they are not nullified by the gentile’s nullification, although the idols themselves are nullified —

For this is like what was stated

as he said:

Rav Giddel said that Rav Hiyya bar Yosef said that Rav: From where do we know that an offering brought before an idol can never be nullified?

As it is stated:

[Psalms 106] "

They joined themselves to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices offered to the dead,"

and we interpret this:

Just as a corpse can never be nullified

and the prohibition against benefiting from it is everlasting,

so too, an offering brought before an idol can never be nullified.

Therefore, the Sages refrained from using them, since benefiting from them is prohibited.

And the one who did not refrain from using them said:

These stones are not prohibited as an offering brought before an idol, because

I require it to resemble the Temple service.

An offering is considered such only when one performs before an idol a service resembling the sacrifices brought in the Temple, such as slaughtering and the other services performed there

— but that is absent

whereas throwing stones, although throwing them is prohibited and one is liable to the death penalty for it—

Nevertheless, since there is no service like this in the Temple, the stones do not become prohibited to benefit from as an offering brought before an idol.

For the entire law of an offering brought before an idol is derived from the verse [Exodus 22]: "One who sacrifices to gods [idols] shall be condemned; only to the Lord alone," meaning: every sacrifice is offered only to the Lord alone, and when one sacrifices to idols, he shall be condemned and it becomes prohibited to benefit from it. Therefore, from this verse one can derive only slaughtering and the other services that are unique to the worship of the Lord in the Temple

. These stones, however, are prohibited because they themselves become idols, as will be explained, and not because they are offerings brought before an idol.

Since they are prohibited as idols, they can be nullified when the non-Jew nullifies them, like other idols that can be nullified. Therefore, the Sages, including Rabbi Menahem ben Simai, did not refrain from using them.

In this matter, the Gemara—the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna—cites a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

Rav Yosef bar Abba said: It happened that

Rabba bar Yirmeya

came to our place

and

came and brought a teaching in his hand

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 circuses ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column location")—they are

permitted

to benefit from, because the non-Jew nullified them.