|  |  | Previous Folio / ‘Abodah Zarah Directory / Tractate List / Home / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah ### Folio 50a With regard to stones which are near,1 we may likewise assume that they fell [from the idol] and all agree that they are prohibited; the point of variance between them must therefore be with respect to stones which are at a distance.2 But the Mishnah uses the phrase: NEXT TO A MERCURIUS!3 — What means NEXT TO? Within four cubits of its side. R. Ishmael holds that they make a small Mercurius4 by the side of a large Mercurius; if, then, there are three stones which together resemble a Mercurius they are prohibited, and if there are two they are permitted. The Rabbis, on the other hand, hold that they do not make a small Mercurius by the side of a large Mercurius; consequently it is immaterial whether there are three or two stones. If they are seen to be connected with it they are prohibited, otherwise they are permitted. The Master said [above]: 'When it is certain that they dropped from the idol, all agree that they are prohibited.' Against this statement I cite the following: When stones dropped from a Mercurius, if they are seen to be connected with it they are prohibited, and if they do not appear to be connected with it they are permitted; and R. Ishmael says: Three stones are prohibited but two are permitted! — Raba explained: Do not read in this extract 'dropped' but 'were found'.5 But is R. Ishmael's opinion that [if they are within four cubits] two stones are permitted? Behold it has been taught: R. Ishmael says: If two stones were found within the idol's reach6 they are prohibited and three are prohibited even at a greater distance! — Raba explained: There is no contradiction; here7 they were within one reach, and there within two reaches. How is this to be understood?8 — There is a mound between [the stones] and the Mercurius. When they are lying in this manner9 [are they to be considered a Mercurius]? For behold it has been taught: The following are the stones of a Beth-Kulis10 — one here, a second next to it, and a third on the top of them!11 — Raba explained: This teaching refers to the basis of a Mercurius.12 The palace of King Jannaeus13 was destroyed. Idolaters came and set up a Mercurius there. Subsequently other idolaters came, who did not worship Mercurius, and removed the stones with which they paved the roads and streets. Some Rabbis abstained [from walking in them] while others did not. R. Johanan exclaimed, 'The son of the holy walks in them, so shall we abstain!' Who was 'the son of the holy'? — R. Menahem son of R. Simai. And why did they call him 'the son of the holy'? — Because he14 would not gaze even at the image on a zuz.15 What was the reason of him who abstained [from walking in these streets]? — He agreed with what R. Giddal said in the name of R. Hiyya b. Joseph: Whence is it that an idolatrous offering16 can never be annulled? As it is stated, They joined themselves also unto Baal-peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead17 — as a dead body can never be annulled,18 similarly an idolatrous offering can never be annulled. As for him who did not abstain, he said: We require [such an offering] to resemble what was offered within the Temple.19 and we have not such here.20 R. Joseph b. Abba said: Rabbah b. Jeremiah once visited our town. When he came he brought with him this teaching: If an idolater took stones from a Mercurius and paved roads and streets with them, To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files E.g.. within a cubit or a half cubit of the idol (Rashi). Within four cubits (Rashi). So they must be near it. Consisting of three stones or more. According to the amended reading there is still uncertainty whether the stones are part of the idolatrous heap. I.e., within a distance of four cubits. When he prohibits two stones. Viz., the phrase 'within two reaches'. The probability is then much less that they were part of the idol. V. Mishnah: SIDE BY SIDE. A wayside cairn dedicated to Mercurius. Formed like a dolmen. In this manner they start the heap and additions are made to it. But a small Mercurius by the side of a large one need not take the form of a dolmen. Alexander Jannaeus who ruled over Judea 104-78 B.C.E. The allusion is probably to the palace which he had built, not that it was destroyed during his lifetime. [Klein. op. cit. p. 2, refers this to the palace of Herod the Tetrarch in Tiberias, which was destroyed at the beginning of the revolt in 67 C.E.; v. Josephus, Vita, 12.] [R. Menahem, 'son' expressing an attributive idea = a holy man. Tosaf. ascribes the designation 'holy' to the father, whose holiness the son inherited.] V. Glos. The coin bore the emblem of some idolatrous cult. And the stones used for Mercurius came within that category. Ps. CVI, 28. So as not to defile. Before we declare that it cannot be annulled. Stones were not offered in the Temple! Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### ‘Abodah Zarah 50b they are permitted;1 if an Israelite took stones from a Mercurius and paved roads and streets with them, they are prohibited; [and he added that] there was no scholar2 or scholar's son3 who could elucidate this teaching.4 R. Shesheth said: I am neither a scholar nor a scholar's son, yet I can elucidate it. What is the difficulty? The statement of R. Giddal.5 [To this I make the reply given above:] 'We require [such an offering] to resemble what was offered within the Temple, and we have not such here.' R. Joseph b. Abba said: Rabbah b. Jeremiah once visited our town. When he came he brought with him this teaching: We may remove worms [from a tree] and patch the bark with dung6 during the Sabbatical year,7 but we may not perform these operations during [the non-holy days of] a festival. On both these occasions we may not prune,8 but we may smear oil on the place of pruning9 either during [the non-holy days of] a festival or during the Sabbatical year; and he added that there was no scholar or scholar's son who could elucidate this teaching. Rabina said: I am neither a scholar nor a scholar's son, yet I can elucidate it. What is the difficulty in it? Shall I say that the difficulty lies [in the operations mentioned] in connection with [the non-holy days of] a festival and the Sabbatical year, viz., why is the latter occasion different that the work is permitted from the former occasion when it is prohibited? Is, then, the Sabbatical year analogous [to the non-holy days of a festival], since the Divine Law forbade labour then but permitted occupation, whereas on [the non-holy days of] a festival even occupation is also prohibited! Perhaps the difficulty is in connection with patching the bark and smearing the place of pruning — what is the distinction that the former is permitted and the latter prohibited? But is patching the bark, the purpose of which is the preservation of the tree and is permitted, analogous to smearing the place of pruning, the purpose of which is to strengthen the tree and is prohibited!10 Perhaps the difficulty is in the contradiction about patching the bark, because the teaching was: 'We may remove worms [from a tree] and patch the bark with dung during the Sabbatical year'; and against this I quote: We may patch the bark of plants, enwrap them, cover them with powder, make supports for them, and water them up to the New Year11 — up to the New Year this is permissible but not in the Sabbatical year itself!12 — Perhaps [the contradiction might be solved] according to the view of R. 'Ukba b.Hama who said: There are two kinds of hoeing [olive trees]; one to strengthen the tree and this is prohibited [in the Sabbatical year] and the other to close up cracks13 and this is permitted. Similarly here there are two kinds of patching; one is to preserve the tree and is permitted and the other to strengthen the tree and is prohibited! Perhaps the difficulty is in the contradiction about smearing the place of pruning, because the teaching was: 'We may smear oil on the place of pruning either during [the non-holy days of] a festival or during the Sabbatical year'; and against this I quote: We may smear figs and perforate them to fatten them [with oil] up to the New Year14 — up to the New Year this is permissible but not in the Sabbatical year itself! — But are the two cases analogous; in the former the purpose is to preserve the tree and is permitted, whereas in the latter it is to fatten the fruit and is prohibited! R. Sama the son of R. Ashi said to Rabina: Rabbah b. Jeremiah's difficulty is in connection with smearing the place of pruning on [the non-holy days of] a festival15 and patching the bark on that occasion.16 Since the purpose of both is to preserve the tree, why the distinction that one is permitted and the other prohibited? That is why [Rabbah b. Jeremiah] remarked, 'There was no scholar or scholar's son who could elucidate it.' Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If an idol is worshipped [by tapping before it] with a stick and [an Israelite] broke a stick in its presence, he is liable;17 if he threw a stick in front of it he is free of penalty. Abaye said to Raba: Why is it different when he broke the stick? Because it resembles the slaughter [of an animal in the Temple].18 Then the act of throwing a stick resembles the rite of sprinkling [the blood in the Temple]!19 — He replied: We require a sprinkling which is broken up and that we have not here.20 Against [this explanation of Raba] is quoted: If he offered to the idol excrement or poured out before it a vessel of urine, - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Because by using them for such a purpose, the heathen annulled them. Lit., 'skilled artisan', i.e., an ordained Rabbi. A Rabbinical student. The difficulty is, how could idolatrous offerings have been annulled? That there can be no annulment with an idolatrous offering. In places where the bark had fallen off, Jastrow explains: smear a plant with rancid oil to keep worms away. When all agricultural labour has to be suspended (Lev. XXV, 4). To increase the foliage. So Rashi; but Jastrow has: Cut a branch to let the sap drip. To prevent the sap from running out, which would injure the tree. The latter, unlike the former, increases the growth and is consequently forbidden in the Sabbatical year. So the problem is not to be sought in this point. Preceding the Sabbatical year (Sheb. II, 4). Whereas Rabbah b. Jeremiah taught that this could be done during the Sabbatical year. In the soil around the root. Its purpose is then only to preserve the tree. Sheb. II, 5. Which is permitted. Which is prohibited. To the death-penalty for the sin of idolatry. The animal is, as it were, broken. So the man who did this should also be punished. There is no analogy between throwing a solid object and sprinkling drops of a liquid. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |