The Mishnah (above daf 50-1(b)) taught - the Chachamim said - whatever can be seen with (the Markulis) is prohibited; whatever cannot be seen with it is permitted.

The Chachamim reason that whatever can be seen with it is considered to be part of it.

Question: "Whatever can be seen with it is prohibited" - doesn't this disprove Reish Lakish, who said earlier (daf 41-4(f)) that one may gain benefit from a broken idol...so why are stones that had been thrown at the Markulis and had fallen down prohibited?

Answer: We said there (daf 41-4(g)) that if it is known that the idol will be rebuilt, all agree that it is prohibited.

Question: Doesn't this disprove R. Yochanan there, who said that one may not gain benefit from a broken idol (and the Chachamim say here that whatever cannot been seen with it is permitted)?

Answer: Even R. Yochanan reasons that if the idol will not be rebuilt, it is permitted.

Question (In the name of R. Yudan, the father of R. Matanyah): If they placed them in their correct places, it is considered as if it will be rebuilt and they are prohibited; this should apply to the stones that can been seen with the Markulis?

Answer: Are they in their correct place? (They cannot be seen with the Markulis!)

(R. Ba): Sometimes Rav said that broken pieces of an idol cannot be annulled (as they still worship them) and sometimes Rav said that items that serve an idol that broke cannot be annulled. If you say that items that serve cannot be annulled, certainly an idol itself cannot; if you say that an idol cannot be annulled, but items that serve can be annulled.

(R. Shmuel/ R. Abahu citing Rav): Stones that were thrown at a Markulis are considered a gift to an idol and can never be annulled.

R. Yochanan heard this teaching of Rav and praised it, because it is similar to one who presents food before an idol, that it can never be annulled.

Question: How does one annul the stones of a Markulis?

Answer (R. Chiya bar Ada): By spitting on them.

Question: But R. Chiya's Baraisa taught that if stones of a Markulis were scattered, they can never be annulled?

Answer (R. Pinchos): If they were thrown at the idol, they may be annulled; if they were actually pieces of the idol that fell off, they may not be annulled.

It is like the case of R. Shimon son of Rebbi, who had a Markulis idol in his forest (that was made by gentiles for themselves). One of his forest workers came and R. Shimon said to him, "Since I've heard that the city mayor wants to pass through the forest tomorrow, I ask of you to remove the Markulis cover from there." After they did so and disassembled the Markulis, the worker wanted to take the stones. R. Shimon said that they were now his (since the gentile had annulled them). When R. Chiya the Great heard of R. Shimon's plan, he praised him, saying, "Does his mother have a son as great as this?"

Question: Why did R. Chiya praise him when R. Chiya had already taught that actual Markulis stones can be annulled?

Answer: He praised R. Shimon for taking the teaching and establishing it as the Halachah.

(Mishnah): If he found on top of a Markulis, money, a garment or utensils, they are permitted. If he found clusters of grapes, wreaths of stalks, wines, oils or fine flour or anything else that is brought on the altar, it is prohibited.

(Gemara) (R. Yonasan): Not only are wreaths of stalks prohibited but even wreaths of roses.

(R. Yosi): Not only is a Markulis with money on top permitted, but any idol without a curtain spread out in front of it is permitted. If he found within the curtain a garment or utensils, they are permitted.

(Mishnah): If an idol has a garden or bathhouse, one may only use them without payment (so that he does not give money to its priests).

If they belonged to the idol but also to others, one may use them even with payment.

(Gemara): When the Mishnah does not allow using the garden/bathhouse for payment, it refers to the payment that benefits and supports the priests.

One may not rent flutes of idolatry when the proceeds go to supporting the priests. But if the payment goes to the government, it is permitted, even if the government gives a portion of the income to the priests. One may not rent a store of idolatry, when the proceeds go to supporting the priests. But if the payment goes to the government, it is permitted, even if the government gives a portion of the income to the priests.

If a collector is collecting taxes to support the priests, one may not give him money. But if the payment goes to the government, it is permitted, even if the government gives a portion of the income to the priests.

Our Mishnah (above (b)) supports this - If (the garden or bathhouse) belonged to the idol but also to others, one may use them even with payment.

(Mishnah): An idol of an idolater becomes prohibited immediately, but an idol of a Jew only becomes prohibited when it is actually worshipped.

An idolater can annul his idol and the idol of a Jew, but a Jew cannot annul the idol of an idolater.

If one annulled an idol, he thereby also annulled its accessories. But if he only annulled its accessories, the idol itself remains prohibited.

(Gemara) (R. Shimon ben Lakish): When the Mishnah taught that an idolater's idol becomes prohibited immediately, it is referring to when a craftsman built it for sale, as he bows down to it immediately in the hope that this will cause the idol to bring about its sale (but if made by a private person, it is only prohibited when he actually worships it).

Question (R. Yosi): Is it in the case of a craftsman (who is assumed to bow down to it immediately) that the Mishnah taught that 'an idol of an idolater becomes prohibited immediately (as soon as it is made) but an idol of a Jew only becomes prohibited when it is actually worshipped'? If so, there is no actual difference between an idolater and a Jew, as they both only become prohibited when they are actually worshipped?!