We begin a new chapter, Chapter Four, in the Talmud Bavli, named Rabbi Ishmael. The Mishnah states: Rabbi Ishmael says, "Three stones placed side by side next to a Markulis are forbidden, but two are permitted."
The Markulis was a form of idol worshiped by non-Jews. Some explain that Markulis was a nickname for a primary idol, Markoudi, associated with commerce and business. This idol was depicted as a person with an outstretched hand. It was typically placed on roads where travelers conducted business. The idol itself was constructed with two stones placed side by side, representing hands, and a third stone on top, representing a head. The manner of worship involved throwing stones at it.
So, the Mishnah discusses a scenario where three stones are found next to a large Markulis. Rabbi Ishmael rules that if there are three stones, they are forbidden. However, if there are only two, they are permitted. The Gemara will now explain the reasoning behind this distinction.
The Sages offer a general rule: rocks close to a Markulis are forbidden, regardless of their number. Rocks far from a Markulis, not in close proximity, are permitted. The Gemara elaborates on the Rabbis' position, stating that they hold that the broken pieces of an idol are also considered objects of worship. Therefore, if a piece breaks off the main idol, and the main idol remains intact, those pieces are also worshiped. Consequently, if stones are found close to the original Markulis, it is assumed they fell from it, making them forbidden. If they are far away, it is assumed they did not fall from it, and thus they are permitted.
The Gemara raises a question: If the Rabbis hold that broken pieces are worshiped, then even two stones found close by should be forbidden. Conversely, if they do not hold that broken pieces are worshiped, then even three stones should be permitted. The Mishnah states "next to a Markulis," implying proximity. So, what is the difference between two and three stones in such a case?
Rabbi Yitzhak bar Yosef, quoting Rabbi Yohanan, clarifies the dispute. He states that if it is known for a fact that stones fell from the original Markulis, regardless of their number or location, everyone agrees they are forbidden. This is true even for opinions that generally hold that broken parts of an idol are not worshiped, because in the case of Markulis, breaking and throwing stones is the very act of worship. Therefore, if stones are known to have originated from the Markulis, they are forbidden.
The dispute arises when it is not known whether the stones fell from the Markulis. If the stones are found in very close proximity (e.g., within an amah, approximately two feet), it is assumed they fell from the Markulis, and everyone agrees they are forbidden. The actual dispute, then, concerns stones found "far" from the Markulis, which the Gemara defines as within four amot (approximately eight feet) but beyond one amah. In this scenario, it is clear the stones did not fall from the original Markulis.
The Gemara then reinterprets the Mishnah's phrase "next to a Markulis" to mean "within four amot." The dispute's logic is as follows: Rabbi Ishmael holds that if three stones are found within four amot, even if they didn't fall from the original idol, it is assumed that worshipers built a smaller Markulis next to the larger one, making these three stones forbidden. However, two stones do not constitute a Markulis, so they are permitted. The Sages, on the other hand, contend that idol worshipers do not build smaller Markulis idols next to larger ones. Therefore, even three stones found within four amot are permitted, unless they are in very close proximity where it is assumed they fell from the original idol.
A contradiction is then presented to the statement of Rabbi Yohanan (quoted by Rabbi Yitzhak bar Yosef), which asserted that if stones are known to have fallen from a Markulis, they are always forbidden. A baraita states: "Stones that fell from the Markulis: if they are close, they are forbidden; if far, they are permitted." This baraita seems to contradict Rabbi Yohanan, as it implies a distinction based on distance even when the origin is known. The Gemara resolves this by reinterpreting the baraita's wording: "stones that fell from the Markulis" should be read as "stones that were found next to the Markulis," implying that their origin is unknown.
Thus, the dispute remains focused on cases where the origin of the stones is unknown. If stones are found within an amah, everyone agrees they are forbidden because it's assumed they fell from the Markulis. The dispute then centers on three stones found within four amot, where their origin is unknown. Rabbi Ishmael would deem them forbidden, assuming a smaller Markulis was built, while the Sages would permit them, assuming no such construction.
The Gemara then questions Rabbi Ishmael's stance on two stones being permitted within four amot, citing another baraita where Rabbi Ishmael forbids two stones found in proximity to a Markulis. This appears to be a direct contradiction to his earlier ruling. The Gemara resolves this by introducing a new distinction: "Here, in one contiguous area; there, in two separate areas." The baraita that forbids two stones within four amot refers to a situation where there is no interruption between the large Markulis and the two stones. In this revised understanding, any stones found within four amot without interruption are considered "close" and are forbidden by all, whether two or three, as it's assumed they fell from the idol.
The Mishnah's case, where Rabbi Ishmael permits two stones, refers to a situation where there is an interruption, or "two separate areas," between the original Markulis and the found stones. This interruption makes it certain that the stones did not fall from the original idol. In this specific scenario, Rabbi Ishmael maintains that three stones are forbidden (due to the assumption of a smaller Markulis being built), while two stones are permitted. The Sages, however, would permit even three stones in this interrupted scenario, as they do not believe smaller idols are built. An example of such an interruption is a pile of rocks or dirt between the main idol and the found stones.
To summarize the final understanding of the dispute: If it is known that stones fell from the Markulis, they are forbidden regardless of number or location. If stones are found within four amot without an interruption, they are forbidden by all. The dispute arises only when stones are found within four amot, but with an interruption between them and the original Markulis. In this case, Rabbi Ishmael forbids three stones (assuming a smaller idol) but permits two, while the Sages permit even three.
The Gemara then asks about the structure of a Markulis. The Mishnah implies that three stones placed side by side can constitute a smaller Markulis. However, the typical structure of a Markulis is two stones side by side with a third on top. The Gemara explains that while the main Markulis has the "two-plus-one" structure, a minor Markulis built next to it can indeed be three stones side by side.
The Gemara presents a story: When the house of King Yannai was destroyed, idol worshipers came and established a Markulis there, throwing stones at it as an act of worship. Later, other idol worshipers, who did not worship Markulis, took these stones and used them to pave roads. The question arose whether it was permissible to walk on these roads. Some Sages refrained, holding that the stones retained their forbidden status as objects of worship. Other Sages did not refrain, believing the stones were permitted once used for roads.
The story continues with Rabbi Hanan, referred to as "the son of the holy ones" (Benam shel Kedoshim), who walked on these roads. The Gemara asks, if such a holy person walked on them, should we be more stringent? The "son of the holy ones" is identified as Rabbi Menachem ben Rabbi Simai, who was so pious he would not even look at images on coins, fearing they might be idols. Although images on coins are typically not considered idols, some opinions held that they could be, making it forbidden to look at them. Rabbi Menachem's exceptional piety was attributed to his parents, hence his title.
The reason why some Rabbis refrained from walking on the roads is based on the teaching of Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef, quoting Rabbi Yohanan: "Something that was used as an offering to an idol is never nullified." This is derived from the verse, "And they joined themselves to Baal Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead." Just as a dead person cannot be nullified, so too an offering to an idol cannot be nullified. Therefore, the stones thrown at the Markulis were considered "offerings to an idol" and could not be permitted, even when used for roads.
The opinion that permitted walking on the roads held a different view: for something to be considered an "offering to an idol," it must be a type of offering that could also be brought in the Beit HaMikdash (the Holy Temple). Since stones are not offered in the Beit HaMikdash, throwing them at a Markulis, while an act of worship, does not transform them into a forbidden "offering." Therefore, the stones were never forbidden, and their use for roads was permissible.
Rabbi Yosef bar Abba recounts that Rabbah bar Irmiya once brought a baraita stating: If a non-Jew took stones from a Markulis and paved roads with them, it is permitted. But if a Jew did so, it is forbidden. The prohibition for a Jew is understandable, as a Jew cannot nullify an idol. However, the permission for a non-Jew was puzzling to Rabbah bar Irmiya. He exclaimed, "Let Naggar, the son of Agam, explain this baraita!"
The question Rabbah bar Irmiya had, as explained by Rav Gidal, was why the stones should be permitted even if a non-Jew paved roads with them, given the rule that "offerings to an idol are never nullified." The answer, as previously discussed, is that these stones are not considered "offerings to an idol" because stones are not offered in the Beit HaMikdash. Therefore, when the non-Jew took the stones and paved the roads, he nullified their status as idol worship objects. A Jew, however, cannot nullify an idol, so if a Jew were to throw stones at a Markulis, they would become forbidden to him, and he could not nullify them even by paving a road.
The Gemara then transitions to a new topic, discussing the laws of Shemitah (the Sabbatical year) and Chol HaMoed (intermediate days of a festival) concerning tree care. A baraita is presented: "One may remove worms from trees (matli'in) and fertilize them (mizahamin) during Shemitah, but not during Chol HaMoed. One may not cut branches (gizzum) during either Shemitah or Chol HaMoed. However, one may apply oil to the cut branches (sikhah) during both Shemitah and Chol HaMoed to prevent the tree from dying."
Rabbah, after presenting this baraita, declared that no one could explain it. Rabina, however, offered an explanation. Rabbah's initial question was likely about the discrepancy: why are certain actions permitted on Shemitah but forbidden on Chol HaMoed, given that both prohibit agricultural work? The answer is that on Shemitah, only actual "work of the ground" (melachet karka) is forbidden, but "toiling" (tarcha) that is not direct enhancement is permitted. Removing worms and fertilizing to prevent death are considered protective, not enhancing, and thus are permitted on Shemitah. On Chol HaMoed, however, even "toiling" is forbidden, hence these actions are prohibited.
The Gemara dismisses this as too simple an explanation for Rabbah's profound confusion. Instead, Rabbah's real question was: why is fertilizing (zihum) permitted on Shemitah, but cutting branches (gizzum) is forbidden? The answer is that fertilizing merely protects the tree from dying, which is permitted. Cutting branches, however, enhances the tree's growth and health, which is forbidden on Shemitah. This, too, is considered a straightforward distinction.
The Gemara then proposes Rabbah's actual question stemmed from a contradiction regarding fertilizing. One baraita states that fertilizing is permitted on Shemitah. Another baraita (or part of the same one) states that one may fertilize, tie up, cover with ashes, build mounds around, and water trees only until Rosh Hashanah of the Shemitah year, implying it's forbidden during Shemitah itself. This is the contradiction Rabbah found perplexing.
The resolution is that there are two types of fertilizing (zihum), just as there are two types of digging furrows (kishkush) around olive trees. One type of zihum is for enhancing the tree, which is forbidden on Shemitah. The other type is merely to stabilize and protect the tree from drying out or dying, which is permitted on Shemitah. The baraita that permits zihum on Shemitah refers to the protective type, while the baraita that limits it until Rosh Hashanah refers to the enhancing type.
Still, a problem remains. The baraita states that applying oil (sikhah) is permitted on Shemitah. Yet, another source states that applying oil to unripe figs (paggim) to fatten them is only permitted until Rosh Hashanah, not during Shemitah itself. This is a contradiction. The resolution is that applying oil to cut branches on Shemitah is for stabilization to prevent the tree's death, which is permitted. Applying oil to unripe figs is for enhancement (fattening the fruit), which is forbidden on Shemitah.
So, what was Rabbah's question that no one could crack? Rabbah was puzzled by the distinction between applying oil and applying fertilizer. Both, in their permitted forms, are meant to stabilize the tree so it doesn't die. If applying oil is permitted on Chol HaMoed for this purpose, why is applying fertilizer forbidden? Both involve "toiling" (tarcha), but if one is permitted, the other should be too. This was the precise question Rabbah had regarding the baraita. He couldn't understand why oil was permitted while fertilizer was forbidden, given that both serve a similar protective function, and sometimes oil application might even involve more effort than fertilizing.
The Gemara continues with a discussion about idol worship. If an idol is worshiped by striking it with a stick, and someone breaks a stick in front of it, they are liable. However, if they merely throw a stick in front of it, they are exempt. The distinction lies in the principle that an act of worship is forbidden if it resembles a service performed in the Beit HaMikdash. Breaking a stick is considered similar to shechitah (ritual slaughter), where an animal's neck is broken, which is a service in the Beit HaMikdash. Therefore, breaking a stick in front of the idol, even if not the typical form of worship for that idol, makes one liable because it mimics a Temple service.
However, throwing a stick does not resemble any service in the Beit HaMikdash, as there is no act of "throwing" in the Temple that involves an object breaking or separating in the same way. The Gemara clarifies that this applies specifically when the idol's usual worship involves a stick. If the idol was not worshiped with a stick at all, then breaking a stick in front of it would not be forbidden. The comparison to shechitah holds because breaking a stick is akin to breaking an animal's neck. Throwing a stick, however, is not comparable to throwing blood (zerikah) in the Beit HaMikdash, because when blood is thrown, it separates and trickles down, whereas a thrown stick remains intact.
The Gemara then asks about other actions: If one feeds an idol feces (tzoah) or pours urine (mei raglayim) in front of it, one is liable. This is because throwing urine, like throwing blood, involves a liquid separating and trickling down, resembling the zerikah service in the Beit HaMikdash. But what about throwing solid feces? The Gemara explains this refers to moist feces that would break apart upon impact, thus resembling zerikah.
In summary: any act of worship performed for an idol that resembles a service in the Beit HaMikdash (such as shechitah, haktarah, nisuch, or zerikah) is forbidden, regardless of whether it is the idol's usual mode of worship. If the act does not resemble a Temple service, it is only forbidden if it is the idol's customary mode of worship. In the case of breaking a stick, it resembles shechitah and is forbidden, provided the idol is generally associated with stick-related worship. Throwing a stick, however, does not resemble zerikah because the stick does not break apart like blood or moist feces.