Opinion #1: Rashi explains that the case is where they were very close, as in an Amah or half of an Amah away, making it clear that it fell from the Markolis. The case of far away is where it is (farther than this but) within four cubits. These stones are permitted, as they did not fall from the Markolis.

Opinion #1 (cont.): Rashi later explains that "one grab" means that there is no separation between the rocks and the Markolis. These rocks are forbidden according to everyone, as within four Amos is considered seen with the Markolis. Their argument earlier regarding four Amos is when there are "two grabbings," meaning that there is an interruption (that is tall enough that it is taller than the rocks which is why the Gemara calls it a "height") between the rocks and the Markolis (i.e. a pile of stones separates them). This means that they are considered far from the Markolis, as one does not assume they came from the Markolis.

Question #1: This is very difficult. First of all, it is not the normal way of the Gemara to change logic in this fashion. Originally, we thought that when there is no interruption between the rocks and the Markolis they are considered far from each other if they are within four Amos. We do not assume the rocks fell from the Markolis. The Gemara then says that if there is no interuption, we certainly assume it fell from the Markolis, even if it is within four Amos.

Question #2: Additionally, if there is no pile between the two of them, the reason that two rocks are forbidden is because it fell from the Markolis. If so, why say that two rocks are forbidden? Even one rock should be forbidden! The Mishnah should have said that Rebbi Yishmael says that if they are within "one grab" even one is forbidden. If there are three, they are forbidden even if they are far away.

Question #3: Additionally, being that within four Amos is called "seen" with the Markolis and is forbidden even according to the Rabbanan, why did Rebbi Yishmael say that in "one grab" they are forbidden anymore than the Rabbanan? He should have said that if they are seen with it they are forbidden, as this is the terminology used by the Rabbanan. Even the Rabbanan admit that "seen with it" which means "in one grab" is forbidden!

Question #4: Additionally, the Gemara implies even according to the conclusion of the Gemara that they do not argue regarding stones that are close. Even if there is an interruption, they are forbidden (if they are close). The Gemara earlier also said that they are not arguing regarding stones that are close by, and the Gemara did not retract this.

Question #4 (cont.): This is difficult. Being that they are so close, the interruption is very close to the Markolis, and these stones are worshipped when they fall (and pass over the interruption). If so, the Gemara should have said that if the interruption is close to the Markolis, even the far ones are forbidden as if there was no interruption! Being that they passed the interruption, what damage does the interruption do (to change the status of the rocks to be permitted)?

Answer: However, this is not very difficult, as it is possible to say that the Gemara means that if the rocks are within four Amos and there is no interruption between them and the Markolis, everyone agrees they are forbidden.

Answer (cont.): Alternatively, the case could be where there is an interruption and the stones of the Markolis are only slightly taller than the interruption. When the stones fall from the Markolis, they cannot fall far. (The simple explanation is that they are not arguing regarding stones that are between the Markolis and the interruption. See Maharam for another explanation.)

Opinion #2: It therefore appears that the logic is that within four Amos there are those that are not seen, as stated earlier that stones that are far are within four Amos. The Gemara means by "one grabbing" that there is no interruption.

Opinion #2 (cont.): Within four Amos, even though they are not seen together with the Markolis, Rebbi Yishmael says that even two rocks are forbidden. This is because it is possible that they are a small Markolis. However, this is specifically two rocks. One rock is permitted, as it is not seen as being together with the Markolis, and one stone alone is not worshipped as a Markolis.

Implied Question: The Mishnah said that Rebbi Yishmael holds that two stones are permitted. (What is the case where they are permitted?)

Answer: He is reffering to "two grabbings." This means that there is an interruption, and therefore two should not be forbidden. This is because it is uncommon to make a small Markolis next to a large Markolis if there is an interruption between them. However, three are forbidden even if there is an interruption. Being that they are next to each other, it is apparent that these three stones were made to be a Markolis.

Opinion #2 (cont.): The Rabbanan understand that it does not matter whether there were one or two "grabbings" or two or three stones. If the stones are seen as together with the Markolis, they are forbidden. If they are not, they are permitted. They understand that one does not normally make a small Markolis next to a big Markolis.

Opinion #2 (cont.): Earlier, we thought that if the rocks are very close and seen with the Markolis, everyone agrees that even one rock is forbidden. The argument is regarding rocks that are far away. This means that they are not seen as being together with the Markolis. One might think that this means they are more than four Amos away from the Markolis. The Gemara therefore asks, doesn't it say the rocks in question are next to the Markolis? The Gemara concludes that the argument is regarding stones are within four Amos. Rebbi Yishmael understands that it is apparent that it is a Markolis, as it is common to make a small Markolis next to a big Markolis, even though the small Markolis is not seen as being connected to the big Markolis. However, if they were two stones they are not forbidden, being that there is an interruption between the stones and the Markolis, as per the Gemara's conclusion. However, if there were three rocks, even if there is an interruption it would be normal to make it (as a small Markolis) within four Amos of the Markolis. This is the meaning of "next to the Markolis."

Implied Question: The Beraisa states three rocks, even though they are far away. (Wouldn't Rebbi Yishmael hold that it still has to be seen as part of the Markolis in some way?)

Answer: Being that they are not seen as being together with the Markolis due to the interruption between them, they are called far away (even though they are actually connected because it is normal to make a small Markolis next to a big Markolis even though there is an interruption).

Explanation: This refers to (two stones) within four Amos.

Implied Question: It appears to me that the Gemara could also have questioned Rebbi Yishmael holding three rocks are permitted outside of four Amos. (Why didn't it ask this question?)

Answer: According to the Gemara's conclusion, the omission of this question is understandable.

Question: Rabeinu Tam asked, how can the Gemara mention the name Markolis? It is not stated in the Torah! In Sanhedrin (63b), the Gemara implies that one who does so transgresses the prohibition, "And the name of other gods you should not mention."

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that the real name of the idol is "Kilus," meaning praise. The Chachamim nicknamed it "Kulis" meaning scorn and denigration (as indicated by the Pasuk in Tehilim 44:14). The name Markulis therefore means it is the opposite (of its original intent), and is now Kulis. This is because Mar means in exchange, as indicated by the term "Mar d'Shechutah" in Chulin (94a) and "Mar d'Kanta" in Bechoros (30a).

Explanation: This is a singular term. Similarly, when the Gemara later says that he did not even look at the image of a coin, it is referring to Rebbi Menachem alone, not to his father and mother.

Explanation (cont.): This is as the Gemara states in Moed Katan (25b) that when Rebbi Menachem the son of Rebbi Simai died, all of the images on coins were distorted because (i.e. to show) he did not look at the images on coins.

Question: Why is this deemed a measure of piety? Don't we say in Shabbos (149a) that one cannot even look at this image (according to the law) during the week due to the Pasuk, "Do not turn towards (fake) gods?"

Answer: Perhaps this prohibition cannot be applied to images on coins that one is accustomed to seeing all the time. Even so, Rebbi Menachem did not look at them.

Opinion #1: Rebbi Shmuel in the name of Rebbi Shlomo explains as follows, and these are his words. The Gemara means the service must be like sacrificing in the Beis Hamikdash, or like other ways of offering on the Mizbe'ach such as burning or pouring (libations). If anything goes on an altar it is called a sacrifice to idols which cannot be nullified. This includes all types of food, as indeed stated in our Mishnah, "Wines, oils, and flours etc."

Opinion #1 (cont.): Therefore, these stones are not considered a sacrifice. However, they are forbidden because they are considered the idol itself. This is as is apparent later in the Gemara (51a). Idols can be nullified. Therefore, these stones were nullified when the roads were paved with them (by Nochrim).

Opinion #1 (cont.): We see from here that these candles of wax that are brought as a present to idols, and the candles are lit before them and then put out by the priest, if they are sold or given as a present to a Jew one may benefit from them.

Opinion #1 (cont.): Either way, it should be permitted for one to have benefit from the candles. If they are sacrifices to idols, they do not even require nullification and they are permitted without being nullified. This is because they are not similar to sacrifices that are done on the altar, and such sacrifices do not require nullification.

Opinion #1 (cont.): If it is considered beautification of an idol, and they are lit for beauty and can therefore be nullified like an idol can be nullified, even so they are permitted. Being that the priest extinguished them (in order to sell them), there is no greater nullification than that, as he does not want to light them before the idol any longer. Rather, he wants to benefit from it, and he therefore takes it for himself (to sell).

Observation: Pieces of wax that are also given to idols are permitted, as they are not even considered beautification, nor a sacrifice like that done in the Beis Hamikdash. There is no law of dedication to an idol (it is therefore not considered designated to be a sacrifice or beautification just because this is the person's stated intent). It therefore does not even need nullification.

Observation: Loaves that are brought as a present to the idol are also permitted, as they are not really brought to the idols themselves, but rather to the servants and priests of the idols. They are not considered sacrifices to the idols, as it is not normal to feed these breads to the idols as they used to in earlier generations. This is what appears to the Ri to be correct.

Observation: The clothing of the priests is considered their beautification, not the beautification of the idols, and it is therefore permitted to benefit from these clothes without nullification. Similarly, the instrument called a Klitza is not used for idolatry.

Observation (cont.): However, the fire pans that are used to burn things for idols are forbidden as they are items used to serve idols. They require nullification, as they are used to burn things for idols. Selling it is not enough to be considered nullification, as we hold like the Rabbanan who argue on Rebbi in the Mishnah (53a) in a case where a person sold an idol or gave it as collateral. The Rabbanan say it is not automatically considered that he nullified such an item. Similarly, anything used to serve idols is not considered nullified through sale. Similarly, any item used for beautification of idols is not considered nullified if sold. This is the ruling of Rabeinu Shmuel in the name of Rabeinu Shlomo.

Observation: Rabeinu Shmuel implies by his statement above (c) that the loaves are permitted because they are not made into a sacrifice. If they would bring them for an idol, they would be forbidden, as it is like the service of the Beis Hamikdash. This is because it is fitting to be offered in the Beis Hamikdash, as it is comparable to a Minchah (flour) offering baked in an oven. It seems that this is despite the fact that this type of offering does not involve a throwing that breaks into pieces (i.e. mass of blood into droplets of blood when sprinkled). This is also implied by Rashi.

Observation (cont.): Accordingly, his explanation that this is like the inner (sacrifices) of the Beis Hamikdash means the sacrifices offered there, as the Pasuk says, "One who slaughters to other gods will be killed, (one may only do so) to Hash-m Himself" (Shemos 22). This implies that even if the sprinkling does not break into pieces it can be considered a sacrifice to idolatry, being that it is similar to sacrifices brought inside the Beis Hamikdash. This is despite the fact that stones are not brought inside the Beis Hamikdash.

Question: The Ri does not believe this is correct. The entire Gemara implies that even regarding things done in the Beis Hamikdash one would require a sprinkling breaking into pieces. (Other services in the Beis Hamikdash that do not have this characteristic would not turn something into a sacrifice for idolatry.) This is also implied by the Gemara later, when the Gemara says that this is even regarding an idol which is normally worshipped with a stick.

Opinion #2: He therefore explains that when the Gemara says like the inner, it means like slaughtering and sprinkling blood, which causes something to break up into pieces.

Explanation #1: The case is where the tree will not be destroyed if one waits to take out the worms after Chol ha'Moed. Otherwise, it would be permitted to do this on Chol ha'Moed in order to maintain the tree. This is apparent from the fact that it is permitted on Shemitah.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, even if the tree will be destroyed it is forbidden to do this on Chol ha'Moed because it is an extra bother to do so. This is as we say in Moed Katan (4a) that it is forbidden to water seeds with water from a deep pit, because it is an extra bother to do so. This is despite the fact that it is permitted to water with rainwater because the seeds will otherwise be destroyed.

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that even though doing work for the tree is forbidden thirty days before Rosh Hashanah, it is permitted here in order that the saplings should not die. This leniency is possible because the thirty days being forbidden is a Rabbinic law, and they did not enact their decree in this situation.

Question: This is difficult. Who is the author of this opinion? It cannot be Rebbi Akiva, as he holds that the additional time added onto Shemitah is a Torah law, derived from the Pasuk, "in plowing and in harvesting you should desist." It cannot be Rebbi Yishmael, as he holds this is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai!

Opinion #2: Rather, it is possible to explain that Shemitah today is a Rabbinic law. This is the opinion of Rebbi, as quoted by Abaye in Moed Katan (2b).

Opinion #2 (cont.): According to Rava, watering is a Toldah, and the only things forbidden according to Torah law are Avos, not Toldos.

Opinion #3: Alternatively, only work that involves plowing or planting is a Torah prohibition. Other work is only a Rabbinic prohibition.

Observation: A similar case would be breaking stones in front of Markulis, who normally is worshipped by throwing stones.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this means he fed it excrement, as the phrase, "Who gave you (i.e. to eat) from the tail?" is used in the beginning of Pesachim (3b).

Question #1: The term "Safas" is difficult to understand as meaning this, as the Gemara should have said "Safah."

Question #2: Additionally, the language of the Mishnah never substitutes a form of the word "Safah" for "Achilah" (eating).

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that this means he made it dirty with excrement, with "Safah" meaning "dipped." This is similar to the Gemara in Bava Metzia (89b) that says, "He should not dip it in salt and eat."