Avodah Zarah, Daf Nun, Part 2

 

Introduction

This sugya continues to discuss the stones found near the Mercurius idol.

 

אמר מר בידוע שנשרו ממנו דברי הכל אסורות

ורמינהי אבנים שנשרו מן המרקוליס נראות עמו אסורות שאין נראות עמו מותרות ור’ ישמעאל אומר שלש אסורות שתים מותרות

 

The Master said: If it is known that they fell from the idol, all agree that they are prohibited.

Against this statement they cast the following: Stones that fell from a Mercurius, if they are seen with it they are prohibited, and if they are not seen with it they are permitted; and R. Ishmael says: Three stones are prohibited but two are permitted!

 

Above R. Yitzchak had said that if we know that the stones fell from the Mercurius, they are permitted. But neither the sages nor the rabbis in the mishnah say exactly that.

We should note that the terminology here is unusual. Usually the word ורמינהו means that two tannaitic sources disagree. But here it seems to be a difficulty from a tanna on and amora.

 

אמר רבא לא תימא שנשרו אלא אימא שנמצאו

 

Rava said: Do not read that fell but were found.

 

Rava here emends the first source so that it reads found and not fell.

There is still something strange here, for if the word is found then what is the sentence really telling us.

 

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

אמר רבא לא קשיא כאן בתפיסה אחת כאן בשתי תפיסות

וה"ד דאיכא גובהה ביני וביני

 

But does R. Ishmael really hold that two stones are permitted? Has it has been taught: R. Ishmael says: If two stones were found within the idol’s reach they are prohibited and three are prohibited even at a greater distance!

Rava explained: There is no contradiction; here they were within one reach, and there within two reaches.

What is this case? There is a mound between [the stones] and the Mercurius.

 

According to the mishnah, R. Ishmael seems to always allow two stones found next to a Mercurius. But according to a baraita, if they are within reach of the Mercurius, even two are prohibited.

Rava explains that if they are within one reach they are prohibited but if they are as far apart as two reaches they are permitted. This situation is defined as a case where there is a mound between the stones and the Mercurius.

 

ומרקוליס כה"ג מי הוי והא תניא אלו הן אבני בית קוליס אחת מכאן ואחת מכאן ואחת על גביהן

אמר רבא כי תניא ההיא בעיקר מרקוליס

 

When they are lying in this manner [are they a Mercurius]? Has it not been taught: The following are the stones of a Bet-Kulis: one here, and a third on top of, and a third on the top of them!

Rava explained: That refers to the main part of a Mercurius.

 

Are stones to be considered a Mercurius if they are only right next to each other? A baraita states clearly that a Mercurius is three stones, one on top of two.

Rava explains that that baraita refers to the main part of a Mercurius, which indeed is one stone on two. But once the main part is built, additional stones can be added on the side.

 

I want to point out that the placing of stones on something is reminiscent of the Jewish practice of putting stones on a grave. Unnaturally placed stones are a way of people saying, we were here. Unfortunately, I was at a funeral today and so this sugya came to mind.