Today's shiur will be in Masechet Avodah Zarah דף נ' but we will start on דף מ"ט עמוד ב' from the beginning of the perek. And the Mishnah starts off, רבי ישמעאל אומר, רבי ישמעאל says, שלש אבנים זו בצד זו, if there are three stones laying next to each other, בצד מרקוליס, and they are laying next to a מרקוליס, אסורות, they are forbidden. ושתים, but if they are only two stones next to each other laying next to the מרקוליס, מותרות, they are mutar. Markulis was an avodah zarah. And the way it was made was that they used to have two stones and a third one on top of the two. That was the עיקר עבודה זרה, that was the beginning of this avodah zarah. And the way they would worship this avodah zarah was by throwing rocks at it. So if you see a Markulis, you see the two rocks, the third one on top, and you see many rocks on it, that shows that this was worshipped already. So this what we call a מרקוליס גדול, a big Markulis, a complete עבודה זרה מרקוליס. So if you see next to it laying three rocks next to each other, so Rabbi Yishmael says, then this is asur. But if you only see two laying next to this Markulis, then it is mutar. That's the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.

וחכמים אומרים, but the Chachamim say, שנראות עמו אסורות, those that look with it, which means, those that you could see that they fell off from this Markulis, they are asur, and it makes no difference whether it is three or two, as long as you could tell that the rocks next to it fell off the Markulis, so you know it came from there and that's why it's asur. ושאינן נראות עמו, if you could tell that it did not come from it, because it's not close enough, so then mutarot, it's mutar. And here again it doesn't make a difference whether it's three or two. Even if it's three, as long as that you could tell that it did not come from the Markulis, then it's mutar. This is the opinion of the Chachamim. And the Gemara will explain the reason of the machloket between Rabbi Yishmael and the Chachamim. And the Gemara says, בשלמא רבנן, very well we understand the sevara of the רבנן, קסברי, they hold, עובדין לשברים, that the goyim also worship the broken pieces of their idol. And this applies in this case also, because all the stones that were thrown to the Markulis became added to the avodah zarah, and it became part of the avodah zarah. Which means at this point the Gemara feels that the rocks that were thrown to the Markulis was not considered תקרובת עבודה זרה, was not considered like a sacrifice that they brought to the avodah zarah, but this was considered an addition to the avodah zarah itself. So every rock that was thrown to the Markulis became part of the avodah zarah itself. Then when some rocks fell down off the Markulis, that is considered like a broken piece of the avodah zarah. So the Rabbanan hold that the goyim worship the broken pieces of the avodah zarah itself. So therefore even when it breaks off, it remains avodah zarah. And that's what the Chachamim say, that נראות עמו, if it looks with it, which means it seems as if it came from it, דאיכא למימר מיניה נפיל, that we're able to say it fell from it, אסורי, that's why it's asur. So the Chachamim say it makes no difference whether it's two or three, as long as it seems as if it fell down from the Markulis, so this is avodah zarah, because even though it broke off from the avodah zarah, but the Rabbanan hold that they worship the broken pieces, so it remains avodah zarah and that's why it's asur. ושאינן נראות עמו, if it doesn't look as if it came from it, mutarot, then it's mutar. אלא

רבי ישמעאל, but רבי ישמעאל, מאי קסבר, what does he hold? When he makes a difference between two and three, we don't understand what he holds. אי עובדין לשברים, if he holds that the גוים worship the broken pieces of עבודה זרה, אפילו תרתי נמי ליסר, so two should also be asur as long as there's a possibility that it came from the avodah zarah. So therefore it would remain avodah zarah if we hold that they worship the broken pieces, so even if it's only two, it still should be asur. אי אין עובדין לשברים, if Rabbi Yishmael holds that the goyim don't worship the broken pieces of avodah zarah, and therefore, even if it seems that it came from the Markulis, nevertheless we don't consider it avodah zarah because since it broke off, they stop worshipping it, and therefore it's not avodah zarah anymore, אפילו תלת נמי לא, even if it would be three, as long as it seems that it didn't come from there, it also should not be אסור. So what is the idea of making a difference between two and three? אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן, so Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef said in the name of רבי יוחנן, בידוע שנשרו ממנו דברי הכל אסור, if we know that these are stones that fell off from the Markulis, there is no argument, everyone agrees that it's asur. ואפילו למאן דאמר אין עובדין לשברים, even according to the one that holds that they do not worship the broken pieces of their Avodah Zarah, so lichora, even if we know that it fell off from the Markulis, maybe it still should be mutar, because since it broke off and אין עובדין לשברים, they don't worship the broken pieces, so it should be mutar. He says, nevertheless, it's asur, because הני מילי לעבודת כוכבים, דלאו היינו אורחיה, that's only by an Avodah Zarah that this is not the custom, which means only by an Avodah Zarah where this is not the form. The Avodah Zarah does not consist of a pile of stones, so therefore, if it a piece is broken off, so we say they don't worship the broken piece. אבל הכא, but here concerning מרקוליס, דמעיקרא תבורי מיתברא, that from the beginning it is broken, היינו אורחיה, so this is its normal custom, this is its normal form, which means that the whole Avodah Zarah of Markulis is lechatchilah not stones which are cemented together, but lechatchilah it is only a pile of stones. And therefore, each part of the Markulis, which is to begin with a separate stone, so even if a stone falls off, it is not considered a broken piece of Avodah Zarah. And therefore, even according to the one that holds that they do not worship the broken pieces of Avodah Zarah, but in this case it is not considered a broken piece of Avodah Zarah because lechatchilah they were small individual pieces just put together, so even if one falls off, it remains Avodah Zarah according to everybody. And therefore, if we know for sure that this stone came from the Markulis, from that pile, it definitely is asur according to everybody. כי פליגי, where is the machloket? בסתמא, in the case of סתם, when it cannot be determined whether the stones laying next to the Markulis came from the Markulis or not. And that's where is the machloket between Rabbi Yishmael and the chachamim. And the Gemara goes on to explain, במקורבות נמי, also with regard to the stones which are near, and as Rashi says, which are within one amah or within a half an amah of the מרקוליס, דאיכא למימר מיניה נפלו, where there we are also able to say that it fell from the Merkolis, also דברי הכל אסורות, everyone everyone agrees that it's assur. כי פליגי, where do they argue? במרוחקות, if it's far. Which means, as Rashi says, that it was within the ד׳ אמות. It was further than a half אמה and than an אמה, but it was within the ד׳ אמות. So here there's a machloket between Rabbi Yishmael and the Chachamim. But before the Gemara manages to explain the machloket, the

Gemara asks: How can you say the machloket is when it's far? והא בצד מרקוליס קתני, doesn't it say in the Mishnah that they found the stones next to the Merkolis? And the Gemara answers, מאי בצד, what do we mean next to it? בצד ארבע אמות דידיה, next to its ד׳ אמות, which means it's not further than the ד׳ אמות, and therefore it's considered next to it. And here we have the machloket between Rabbi Yishmael and the Chachamim, whether there's a difference between two or three or we make no such difference. And the machloket is, ישמעאל סבר, רבי ישמעאל holds, עושין מרקוליס קטן בצד מרקוליס גדול, that the custom of the goyim was that they would make a small Merkolis next to a big Merkolis. A big Merkolis would be where they would put two stones next to each other, a third one on top, and then they would throw rocks on it. When that became big, then they would make a small Merkolis next to the big one. And therefore, שלש, if you find three stones next to this big מרקוליס, דדמיין למרקוליס, that is similar to a מרקוליס, אסורות, it is assur, because a regular Merkolis was two stones and a third one on top. So if they put next to this big Merkolis three stones next to each other, which is similar to a big Merkolis, we suspect that this was made as a small Merkolis, and that's why it's assur. שתים, but if you only see two stones next to the מרקוליס, מותרות, it's mutar, because it doesn't look like a big מרקוליס, so there's no reason to say that this was made as a small מרקוליס. To suspect that it fell off from the big מרקוליס, we don't, because since it's more than an אמה away, it probably didn't fall off from there. And therefore, he holds that if it's two, it's mutar. ורבנן סברי, the Rabbanan hold, אין עושין מרקוליס קטן בצד מרקוליס גדול, the goyim did not have this custom of making a small מרקוליס next to a big מרקוליס. So therefore, there is no reason to say that it's asur because it is a small מרקוליס. So therefore, לא שנא שלש, לא שנא שתים, there is no difference between three and two. The only thing it depends on: נראות עמו, if it looks as if it came from it because it's very close, asurot, it is asur. שאין נראות עמו, if it's far and it doesn't look as if it came from there, mutarot, and it's mutar. Then the Gemara says, אמר מר, we said before, בידוע שנשרו ממנו דברי הכל אסורות, if we know for sure that the stones fell off from the מרקוליס, everyone agrees that it's asur. ורמינהו, I will ask you a קשיא, we learn in a ברייתא, אבנים שנשרו מן המרקוליס, stones that fell off from the מרקוליס. So obviously, the beraita is talking in a case where we know for sure that these stones fell off from the מרקוליס. The beraita says like this: נראות עמו אסורות, if it looks as if it came שאין נראות עמו, if it doesn't look as if it came from it, muteret, it's mutar. Rabbi Yishmael omer, Rabbi Yishmael says, שלש אסורות, if there were three stones there, then it is asur. שתים, if there are only two stones, muteret, it's mutar. So here we see clearly that even though we know for sure it fell off from the מרקוליס, nevertheless there is a machloket. Rabbi Yishmael says that three is asur and two is mutar. And the Chachamim say it depends whether it looks as if it came from it or not, even though we know for sure it came from the Markulis. So obviously we cannot say that when we know for sure it came from the Markulis, everyone agrees it's asur. When here we see it's not so. The Gemara answers,

אמר רבא, Rava said, לא תימא שנשרו, אלא אימא שנמצאו. Don't read in the beraita that it's a case where stones fell from the Markulis, but it's supposed to say stones that were found next to the Markulis. And really it means that we do not know whether it fell from the Markulis or not. And the machloket between Rabbi Yishmael and the Chachamim is exactly as we said before, that according to Rabbi Yishmael, since they make a Markulis next to a big Markulis, so three is asur and two is mutar. And the Chachamim say that they don't make a small Markulis next to a big Markulis, and therefore, if you think it came from it, then it's asur, but if it looks as if it didn't come from it, then it's mutar. And the Gemara asks, וסבר רבי ישמעאל שתים מותרות? Does really Rabbi Yishmael hold that two stones are mutar, which means that even if it was found within the four amot of the Markulis, but if it is not three, but two, it is mutar, does he really hold so? והתניא, didn't we learn in a beraita, רבי ישמעאל אומר, Rabbi Yishmael says, שתים בתפיסתו אסורות. If you found two stones within the idol's reach, it is asur. שלש, if you found three, אפילו מרוחקות אסורות, even if they are far, then it is asur. Now when we say two within the avodah zarah's reach, it means within the four amot. So we see that Rabbi Yishmael holds that within the four amot even two are asur, and before we said that when Rabbi Yishmael makes a difference between two and three, that two are mutar and three are asur, is talking in a case where it was within the four amot. In other words, that within the four amot two are mutar. And here we're saying that רבי ישמעאל holds that within the four amot two are asur. And the Gemara answers, אמר רבא, רבא said, לא קשיא, it's no kashya. כאן בתפיסה אחת, כאן בשתי תפיסות. Here, meaning in this last beraita, where we said that Rabbi Yishmael holds that two are asur, is talking if it's within one reach. And here, meaning in the case that we speaking about before, where we said Rabbi Yishmael holds that two are mutar, is talking in a case where it's within two reaches. היכי דמי, what does that mean? What do we mean two reaches? דאיכא גובא ביני וביני, as the case where there is a mound in between the stones and the Markulis. And the peshat is as follows, that when we say now that even within the four amot two are asur, that's where there is no mound, no interruption between the Markulis and these stones. So therefore, we say that since it's within the four amot, it probably fell down from that Markulis, and therefore it is asur even if it's two. And this is true according to Rabbi Yishmael and according to the Rabbanan, because in a case where we assume it fell down from the Markulis, everyone agrees it's asur. And that's why it makes no difference whether it's three or two, because the only difference whether it's three or two is only in the case where we suspect that this is a מרקוליס קטן next to a מרקוליס גדול. But otherwise, if the issur is not because of that, the issur is because we suspect that it fell from the Markulis, so then it makes no difference between three and two. And therefore, even if it's two it's asur, and even according to the Rabbanan it's asur, because the Rabbanan also say that in a case where we think it fell down from the Markulis it is asur. And therefore, as long as it's within the four amot, everyone agrees that we assume it fell down from the Markulis, and it's asur even if it's two. And this is according to Rabbi Yishmael and according to the Rabbanan. The machloket between Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbanan would be only if it's more than four amot. There we call it מרוחקות, it's far. So according to the רבנן, they hold that only if we suspect that it fell from the מרקוליס it's אסור, and therefore if it's more than four אמות, so we don't suspect it fell from the מרקוליס, that's why they say it's מותר. Only if נראות עמו, if it looks as if it came from it, which means if it's within the four אמות, then we say that it's אסור. If it's more than four אמות, it's מותר. Rabbi Yishmael, who says that they make a מרקוליס קטן next to a מרקוליס גדול, so he says even though if it's further than four אמות we know for sure it didn't fall from the מרקוליס, but nevertheless, if it's three, we say that they made this as a מרקוליס קטן next to the מרקוליס גדול. And if it's two, since it's not Similar to a מרקוליס, so probably it is not a מרקוליס קטן, and to suspect that it fell from the מרקוליס we can't either because it's more than four אמות, and therefore, it is מותר. When we said before that the מחלוקת between Rabbi Yishmael and the רבנן is even within the four אמות, that's the case where there was a mound in between the מרקוליס and these stones. So even though it's within the four אמות, but since there is an interruption in between the מרקוליס and these stones, so that has the same דין as if they were far. And therefore, according to Rabbi Yishmael who says that even though it's far, but since they make a מרקוליס קטן next to a מרקוליס גדול, by three, it is אסור, so in this case, too, he would say it's אסור. The רבנן who hold that they don't make a מרקוליס קטן next to a מרקוליס גדול, and the whole איסור could only be if we suspect it fell from the מרקוליס, so since it has an interruption in between the מרקוליס and these stones, so we assume it didn't fall from the מרקוליס, and therefore, the רבנן say it's מותר. So it comes out that the way the Gemara learns now is different than the way the Gemara learned before. Because before, the Gemara, when it said that if it's close, everyone agrees it's asur, if it's far, that's where we have the machloket, and we learned before that far means within the four amot, but now we're saying that within the four amot, if there is no interruption in between, it's considered close, and there, too, everyone would agree it's asur. Only if it's more than four amot, that's where we have the machloket, or even if it's within the four amot, if there is an interruption, that has the same din as being far, and there, too, there would be the machloket between Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbanan. But then the Gemara asks:

ומרקוליס כי האי גוונא מי הוה? Is a מרקוליס made like that? We just said that according to Rabbi Yishmael, even if it's far, if there are three there, it is asur, because we suspect that maybe this is a מרקוליס קטן which they made next to a מרקוליס גדול. But the case here is that they found three stones next to each other. So how can we suspect that this is a מרקוליס קטן, when this is not really the way they make a מרקוליס? והתניא, didn't we learn in a beraita: אלו הן אבני בית קוליס? These are the stones of a בית קוליס, which means of a מרקוליס. אחת מכאן ואחת מכאן ואחת על גביהן. One from this side, one from the other side, and one on top. But not three stones next to each other. So how can we say that when we find three stones next to each other that this is a מרקוליס קטן that they made next to a מרקוליס גדול? אמר רבא, so Rava said: כי תניא ההיא בעיקר מרקוליס. This beraita was learned only concerning the main part of the מרקוליס. The original, first מרקוליס by them was made two stones next to each other and one on top. But later when they make the מרקוליס קטן next to the מרקוליס גדול, then they are not particular to make it דווקא two and two next to each other and one on top, but they also could make it three next to each other. As long as it's similar to a מרקוליס, they would make it into a מרקוליס. After all, this is only מרקוליס קטן. So there, they weren't particular, and they would also make it three stones next to each other. This is the way Rashi learned the המשך of this Gemara. But Tosafot asks a few kashiyot on Rashi, and learns the pshat a little bit differently. Now, some of the kashyos that Tosafos asks are: Number one, as we said before, according to the pshat we learned before, which was Rashi's pshat, the Gemara changes the pshat later from the way we learned before. In the beginning, when it said in the Gemara that if it's close, everyone agrees it's asur, and if it's far, that's where we have the machloket, and we said that close means within an amah or a half an amah, and far means more than an amah away, even though it's within the four amot, and we explained that why is it that if it's close, everyone agrees that it's asur, is because since it's within an amah or a half an amah, we are sure it fell from the מרקוליס, and that's why even the Rabbanan hold it's asur. But if it's more than an amah away, we are sure that it did not fall from the מרקוליס. But nevertheless, Rabbi Yishmael still says that if it's three, it's asur, is because we suspect that this is a מרקוליס קטן next to a מרקוליס גדול. So it comes out that first the Gemara felt that if it's more than an amah away, even though it's within the four amot, that is considered far, and we are sure it did not fall from the מרקוליס. Later on, the Gemara says that if it's within the four amot, and there is no interruption, there is no mound in between, that is considered close, and we are sure that it fell from the מרקוליס, and that's why the Rabbanan would also hold it's asur. So it seems that the Gemara changed from the way it was before. And this is

not the דרך of the Gemara. The Gemara doesn't just change just like that, as first we are so sure that if it's more than an amah away, even though it's within the four amot, we are sure it did not fall from the מרקוליס, and all of a sudden the sevara is that as long as it's within the four amot, we are sure it fell from the מרקוליס, and everyone agrees it's asur. So therefore, it is hard to say that this is the pshat. Another kashya is, if in the case where there is no mound in between, the reason why two are asur is, as we said before, because we assume it did fall from the מרקוליס, because it's within the four amot, so we assume it fell from the מרקוליס, that's why everyone agrees it's asur, so why is this only by two? Why shouldn't the same din be by one? Because if we suspect it fell from the מרקוליס, even if it's one it should be asur. So Rabbi Yishmael should have said that if it's בתפיסה אחת, if it's within one reach, meaning without an interruption in between, even one is asur, and if it's far, then three only are asur, but not less. Why does he say that if it's within one תפיסה, two are asur? Another kashya Tosafot asks, if we're going to say that as long as it's within the four amot we call it נראות, it's considered that it seems as if it fell from the מרקוליס and that's why it's asur, and this is also according to the רבנן, so why does Rabbi Yishmael mention the lashon of תפיסה זו אסורות more than the רבנן? Why does he not use the same lashon as the רבנן use? The רבנן say that if it's נראות, if it seems as if it fell from the מרקוליס, and we say that means as long as it's within the four amot we assume it fell from the מרקוליס it's asur, so why doesn't Rabbi Yishmael say the same lashon, that if it is נראות it is asur? Why does he use the לשון תפיסה? And then Tosafot asks another kashya, and therefore Tosafot learns a different peshat in the Gemara. But

before we explain the peshat in the Gemara, we have to give a הקדמה, that Tosafot learns that the whole Gemara here is talking within the four אמות. And within the four אמות itself, there is a possibility of being נראות and not נראות. Not like we learned before, that נראות, that when it looks as if it fell from it means that it was close, like Rashi learned first it's within an אמה or half an אמה, and when we say אינן נראות, that it doesn't look as if it fell from it, that means that it's further away, like Rashi learned לכתחילה that it means within the four אמות, more than an אמה away, but within the four אמות, or the way Rashi learned later that it means more than four אמות away. Tosafot learns that the whole סוגיא is talking in a case where it's within the four אמות. נראות and אינן נראות is a possibility within the four אמות itself. It could be within the four אמות, and it could seem as if it fell from the מרקוליס, or it could be within the four אמות, and you could tell that it did not fall from the מרקוליס. For instance, if there is a mound in between, then this is called אינן נראות. Another thing that's important to note before we get to learn the Gemara according to Tosafot, that

Tosafot learns when the Gemara says according to רבי ישמעאל עושי מרקוליס קטן בצד מרקוליס גדול, and the Gemara said that this is only by three, since three stones next to each other are similar to a מרקוליס, therefore we suspect that this is a מרקוליס קטן, but two, which are not similar to a מרקוליס, we do not say that this is a מרקוליס קטן. So Tosafot learns this is only if there is an interruption between the stones and the מרקוליס. So there we say that if there are two stones, and they are not similar to a מרקוליס, so we do not suspect that this is a מרקוליס קטן. But if they are three, even though there is an interruption between, but three prove that this is a מרקוליס קטן. But if there is no interruption, and it's right next to the מרקוליס, so even by two Rabbi Yishmael would hold that they make a מרקוליס קטן next to a מרקוליס גדול. Even two stones are a מרקוליס קטן. One stone we never say is a מרקוליס קטן. Now after these הקדמות, we will see the pshat in the Gemara. In the

beginning, when the Gemara first said that the machloket between Rabbi Yishmael and the Chachamim is in the case of מרוחקות, in the case where they are מקורבות, where close, everyone agrees that it's asur. The reason is because since it's within the four amot, and close means that it seems as if it fell from the מרקוליס, everyone agrees it's asur. Even one is asur, because since it seems as if it fell from the מרקוליס, one is also asur. But if it's far, so then there is a machloket between Rabbi Yishmael and the Chachamim. At first the Gemara thought far means further than four amot, and the Gemara said no, it means within the four amot. Otherwise, the לשון in the Mishnah where it says בצד מרקוליס would not make sense, so it's within the four amot. But still within the four amot it could be considered far, because there is something that makes it far. For instance, there is an interruption in between. There is this mound in between the stones and the מרקוליס. That's what we meant לכתחילה, כי פליגי במרוחקות. And that's where we say like this, according to the Rabbanan, that they don't accept the sevara that they make a מרקוליס קטן next to a מרקוליס גדול, and the only reason there could be for issur is if we suspect it fell from it. Now since there is a mound in between, so it is מרוחקות, so even though it's within the four amot, but since there is a mound in between, so it's not נראה, it doesn't seem as if it fell from the מרקוליס, so therefore as far as that is concerned we cannot make it asur. And the other issur of עושה מרקוליס קטן next to מרקוליס גדול Chachamim don't hold, therefore in the case of מרוחקת the Rabbanan say that it's mutar. Rabbi Yishmael who holds that they do make a מרקוליס קטן next to a מרקוליס גדול, Rabbi Yishmael holds that it is אסור, but only three and not two. Why? Because even though we said before that two also could be a מרקוליס קטן, but that's only if there's no interruption. But in the case where there is an interruption in between, so there we say that if it's three, so even though there is an interruption, still we say that this is a מרקוליס קטן and it's אסור. But in the case of two, since there is an interruption, we don't assume this is a מרקוליס קטן, and to say it fell from the מרקוליס we also don't as we said before, therefore according to Rabbi Yishmael, two is מותר. And that's what the Gemara asked later as a קשיא, that how can you say that according to Rabbi Yishmael two is מותר even if it's within the four amos? But didn't we learn in a Beraisa Rabbi Yishmael says that two בתפיסא ליה אסורות, שלש אפילו מרוחקות אסורות? And תפיסא ליה means within the four amos, so it says there clearly that two within the four amos is still אסור. And the Gemara answered that what we meant was is as we said before, that two within the four amos if there is no interruption is taka אסור. Why is two אסור within the four amos? Because we suspect that this is a מרקוליס קטן. In other words, even in a case where אין נראה, even in a case where it doesn't seem that this fell from it, but as long as it's within the four amos, we suspect that this is a מרקוליס קטן. But this is only if there is no interruption. But if there is an interruption, and this is what the Beraisa means when it says אפילו מרוחקות, when it's far. Far doesn't mean further than four amos. Far means it could be within the four amos and we still call it far. Why? Because there is an interruption in between, שתי תפיסות. If there is an interruption in between, there two is not אסור, because since there is an interruption, we don't suspect it fell from the מרקוליס, and that's why as far as that is concerned it's not אסור. To suspect that this is a מרקוליס קטן, since it is two and there is an interruption, we don't suspect it's a מרקוליס קטן, so therefore two would be מותר, but three would be אסור even though there is an interruption in between, but since it is three, which is very similar to a מרקוליס, we say that this is a מרקוליס קטן. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. But the Rabbanan, they hold that since we do not say that you make a מרקוליס קטן next to a מרקוליס גדול, so as long as there is an interruption in between, which means that we are sure it didn't fall from the מרקוליס, there is no reason to make it asur. Whether it is two or three, it makes no difference. If there is no interruption in between, this is nir'eh, then the Rabbanan say it's asur. And that's the klal: the Rabbanan hold that it doesn't depend on three or two, it doesn't depend on one תפיסה or another תפיסה, it depends on one thing: if it seems as if it fell from it, it is asur. If it doesn't seem that it fell from it, even if it's within the ארבע אמות, then it's mutar. According to Rabbi Yishmael, if it seems that it fell from it, it's definitely asur, no matter what. If it doesn't seem and it fell from it, so then if we're able to say that this is a מרקוליס קטן it's asur, if we can't, then it's mutar. Now when are we able to say if it's that it is a מרקוליס קטן? So if it's within the four אמות without an interruption, then even by two we say it's a מרקוליס קטן and it's asur. If there is an interruption, so two we do not say is a מרקוליס קטן, but if it's three, we do say it's a מרקוליס קטן, and therefore according to Rabbi Yishmael, it is asur. Then the Gemara continues,

בי ינאי מלכא חרוב, the palace of Yanai the king was destroyed. אתו עובדי כוכבים אוקימו ביה מרקוליס, came גוים, and they used the stones for the עבודה זרה מרקוליס. They threw it upon the עבודה זרה מרקוליס, this was the form of their worship as we said before. אתו עובדי כוכבים אחריני, came other idol worshippers דלא פלחו למרקוליס, that they did not worship the מרקוליס, שקלינהו, they took these stones, וחיפו בהן דרכים וסרטיאות, and they paved the streets and the roads with these stones. איכא רבנן דפרשי, there were certain רבנן that abstained from walking on these streets. Why? They did not want to have hana'ah from the stones that were used for עבודה זרה. ואיכא רבנן דלא פרשי, and there were some חכמים who did not abstain, they did walk on these stones. אמר רבי יוחנן, and Rabbi Yochanan said, בנן של קדושים מהלך עליהן, so Rabbi Yochanan said, the son of the holy ones does go on them, so we should abstain? מאן ניהו בנן של קדושים, who is this one that was called the son of the holy ones? Rabbi Menachem bar Rabbi Simai, was Rabbi Menachem bar Rabbi Simai. ואמאי קרו ליה בנן של קדושים, why did They call him the son of the holy ones? דאפילו בצורתא דזוזא לא מסתכל, because he wouldn't even look at the form, the face, on a coin. Since the face had some kind of picture of an idol, so he wouldn't even look at the coin. That's why he was called the son of the holy ones. And he walked on those stones, he didn't mind having use of these stones. So why should we mind? And the Gemara explains, מאי טעמא דמאן דפריש? What is the reason of those that did abstain, did not want to walk on these stones? סבר לה כי הא דאמר רב גידל אמר רב חייא בר יוסף אמר רב, because he held like Rav Gidel said in the name of Rav Chiya bar Yosef in the name of רב, מניין לתקרובת עבודה זרה שאין לה בטלה עולמית? The din is that an avodah zarah could become batel. An avodah zarah is asur b'hana'ah, you're not allowed to have any use from it. But a goy is able to be mevatel, to nullify the avodah zarah. And if he does it, and the Gemara explains exactly how he is able to be mevatel it, but after a goy is mevatel it, this is not an avodah zarah anymore, and it's mutar b'hana'ah. So lichora the same thing happened here. Since goyim came, and they took these stones, and they paved the roads with it, so they were mevatel this from being an avodah zarah. So lichora there is no she'eilah in having hana'ah from these stones. But nevertheless, he held like Rav Gidel said that how do we know that an offering, a korban of avodah zarah, cannot ever become batel? Shene'emar, because the pasuk says concerning the avodah zarah of בעל פעור, ויצמדו לבעל פעור ויאכלו זבחי מתים, that they joined themselves together with the Baal Peor, and they ate sacrifices of the dead. So we see that the Torah compares, the pasuk compares the sacrifice of avodah zarah of Baal Peor to the sacrifice of the dead, and we say מה מת אין לו בטלה לעולם, just like a dead body could never become batel, which means a dead body is tamei, and it always remains tamei, there is no way to take away the tum'ah from the dead body, אף תקרובת עבודה זרה אין לה בטלה לעולם. So too, the offering, the korban, that the goyim bring to the עבודה זרה cannot become בטל. This din that a goy is able to be mevatel the עבודה זרה, and it becomes מותר בהנאה, is only concerning the עבודה זרה itself, but the korban that was brought to the עבודה זרה can never become בטל. And therefore they did not want to walk on these stones, because since these stones were thrown to the Merkulis, this is the form of their worship, so these stones according to them have a din of תקרובת עבודה זרה, of a korban to עבודה זרה, not of עבודה זרה itself. And since we hold like Rav Gidel that a korban of עבודה זרה could never become בטל, so therefore even though the goyim paved the roads with it, it still doesn't become בטל. And that's why these people, these chachamim, abstained from walking on these stones. ומאן דלא פריש, the ones that didn't abstain, אמר, he said, בעינן כעין פנים וליתא. When does an object have a din of an offering, of a korban to עבודה זרה? If it's כעין פנים, it is similar to inside. Which means it's similar to a korban brought in the בית המקדש on the מזבח. In other words, only such things that could be used as a korban on the מזבח in the בית המקדש, if you use the same kind of thing as a korban to עבודה זרה, that has a din of תקרובת עבודה זרה. But if it's something that cannot be used as a korban inside the בית המקדש to Hashem, something like that, if it's used for עבודה זרה, it does not have a din of תקרובת עבודה זרה. And therefore, since there is no such thing as bringing a stone as a korban to Hashem on the mizbeach in the Beis Hamikdash, so when that is used as a korban to the avodah zarah, it doesn't have a din of תקרובת עבודה זרה. And therefore, since it doesn't have a din of תקרובת עבודה זרה, it has a din of the avodah zarah itself. So just like the avodah zarah itself could become batel through a goy, this could also become batel through a goy. And therefore these goyim, when they paved the roads with it, were mevatel it, and since it doesn't have a din of a korban to avodah zarah, it becomes batel, and therefore they allowed to walk on it. Then the Gemara continues,

אמר רב יוסף בר אבא, Rav Yosef bar Abba said, איקלע רבה בר ירמיה לאתרין, Rabbah bar Yirmiyah happened to be in our place, אתא, he came, ואייתי מתניתא בידיה, and he brought a ברייתא with him. Said in the ברייתא, עובד כוכבים שהביא אבנים מן המרקוליס וחיפה בהן דרכים וסרטיאות, if a goy brought stones from a Merkulis and he paved with it the roads and the streets, מותרות, it is מותר. Why? Since a goy paved the street with it, so he was mevatel it from avodah zarah, and the din is a goy is able to be mevatel עבודה זרה. אבל ישראל שהביא אבנים מן המרקוליס וחיפה בהן דרכים וסרטיאות, but if a Yid brought stones from Merkulis and paved the roads with it, אסורות, it is אסור. Why? Because a Yid doesn't have the power to be mevatel עבודה זרה. In other words, even if he does the same act as a goy would do, But since a yid did it, the avodah zarah doesn't become battel, and therefore, if the yid paved the roads with these stones of the Merkulis, they are still asur and you can't have any use from it. ולית נגר ולא בר נגר דיפרקינה, and he added that there is no chacham or son of a chacham that is able to explain this beraita. And soon the Gemara will explain what was the problem with the beraita, what was the kushya that he had that he thought that no one could explain this beraita. אמר Rav Sheshet, Rav Sheshet said: אנא לא נגר אנא ולא בר נגר אנא, I am not a chacham myself and I am not a son of a chacham, ופריקנא לה, and I will explain it, I will answer it. מאי קושיא ליה, what was his kushya? Why didn't he understand the beraita? Rav Gidal, because of what Rav Gidal said. His kushya was that how could the beraita say that if a goy paved the roads with these stones, it is mutar because the goy is mevattel it, but didn't Rav Gidal say that a korban of avodah zarah could never become battel? And since these stones are a korban to the Merkulis, they never could become battel. So therefore he didn't understand, why does the beraita say that if a goy paved the roads with it it's mutar? So he says, I will answer it: דהני כעין פנים וליכא, the same answer as we gave before, that when is it considered a korban of avodah zarah? Only if it's כעין פנים, if it's a kind of korban similar to a korban that was brought inside the בית המקדש on the mizbeach. But since this is not here, because stones could not be brought as a korban, so therefore when you bring stones as a korban to avodah zarah, it doesn't have a din of a korban of avodah zarah. It only has a din like the avodah zarah itself, and therefore, bitul does help. And that's what the beraita meant, that if a goy did it, so he was mevatel it, it is batel, and you're allowed to have hanaah from it. But if a ייד did it, since a ייד is not able to be מבטל עבודה זרה, therefore, it is asur. And now we'll continue with the Gemara. Since the Gemara before brought what Rav Yosef bar Abba said concerning what Rabbah bar Yirmiyah said when he came to their place, the beraita he brought, and also that he said that this is a din that we can't explain, so the Gemara brings another thing that was the same way, that he brought a beraita and also said that we can't explain it. And the Gemara says, אמר רב יוסף בר אבא, רב יוסף בר אבא said: איקלע רבה בר ירמיה לאתרין, רבה בר ירמיה happened to be in our place, ואתא, he came, ואייתי מתניתא בידיה, and he brought a beraita with him. What did it say in the beraita that he brought? מטלין ומזממין בשביעית. We know that

during the year of shemittah, we are not allowed to do any work on the field. But he said, the beraita says that we are allowed to remove worms from the trees on shemittah. And also, we are allowed to patch the bark with manure. That if there was some kind of makkah in the tree, and part of the bark fell off, so then by putting zevel there, putting manure there and tying it, this will preserve the tree. So this is what he means here, that you're allowed to take out the worms during shemittah, and also mezammin, you're allowed to put the manure in the place where the bark fell off. And as Rashi says, this is not the same as it says in the Gemara Moed Katan דף ג, that אין מזבלין, that you're not allowed to put manure during shemittah, because there, we're talking about manure on the ground, on the field. That is עבודה שבשדה ובכרם, that is work of the field, and that is not allowed. But here, we're talking about in the place of the fallen bark, you are allowed to put the manure. But ואין מטלין ומזממין במועד, but you're not allowed to take out the worms or put this manure in the place of the fallen bark during Chol Hamoed. כאן וכאן, but in both of these cases, meaning בין Shemitah and during חול המועד, אין מגרמין, you are not allowed to prune the trees, but וסכין שמן לגזום, but you are allowed to smear oil in the place where it was pruned already. Because if you're not going to put the oil there since it was pruned, then this tree is going to die, and therefore, it is allowed. Because עבודת קרקע, any work which is work in the field, the Torah said you're not allowed. But these are not עבודת קרקע, because the only thing it's going to do is going to preserve the tree that the tree shouldn't die. It's not going to make the tree better, it's only going to have it continue the way it is, and that is allowed. So this is allowed בין במועד, בין בשביעית, whether it is Chol Hamoed or it is

Shemitah. This is the beraita that he brought, and he said, ולית נגר ולא בר נגר דיפרקינה, there is no chacham or son of a chacham that is able to explain this beraita. אמר רב יוסף, Rav Yosef said: אנא לא נגר אנא ולא בר נגר אנא, I am not a chacham myself, and I am not a son of a chacham, ומפרקינא, and I will answer it. מאי קא קשיא ליה, what is his kashya to begin with? אילימא, if you're going to say: מועד אשביעית קא קשיא ליה, his kashya is, what is the difference between Chol Hamoed and Shemitah? מאי שנא שביעית דשרי, ומאי שנא מועד דאסור, why is the din that during Shemitah it is mutar, and during Because that he said that during Shemitah you are allowed to take out the worms and you are allowed to cover up the fallen place of the bark, and during Chol Hamoed you can't do it, so here we say that the kashya is, what is the difference? In both cases, you're not allowed to work. So why is it not allowed during Chol Hamoed and it is allowed during Shemitah? So he says this is no kashya: מי דמי? How can you compare the two? שביעית מלאכה אסר רחמנא, טרחה שרי. During Shemitah, the Torah just said that to do melachah, to do work, is forbidden, but just to do a tirchah, just an occupation, that is permitted. מועד, during חול המועד, אפילו טרחה נמי אסור. To occupy yourself and to be מטריח yourself is also asur. And therefore, even though these things are not a melachah, they are just a tirchah, still on Chol Hamoed it is assur. But in Shemitah, when a tircha is mutar, that's why it is mutar to take out the worms or to cover the place of the fallen bark. So it couldn't be that this is the kashya. Ela, so

therefore, what is the kashya? זיהום אגיזום קא קשיא ליה. His kashya was between the patching of the bark and the pruning. מאי שנא זיהום דשרי, what is the difference? Why is the patching of the bark allowed, ומאי שנא גיזום דאסור, why is pruning assur? Because, as we said in the beraita, that on Shemitah you are allowed to cover the place of the fallen bark, but it says that כאן וכאן אין מקזמין, that Yom Tov, Chol Hamoed and Shemitah you can't prune. What is the difference? And that was his kashya. But if this is his kashya: מי דמי? How can you compare the two? זיהום אוקמי אילנא. When you patch the place of the bark, all that does is it preserves the tree, ושרי, therefore it's mutar. It doesn't make the tree grow better. It only preserves it the way it is. That's allowed during Shemitah. גיזום, but when you prune it, אברויי אילנא, that makes the tree better, ואסור, and it is forbidden. As we said before, that if it is to make the tree grow better, that is forbidden in Shemitah. So the difference between these two dinim is obvious. So it can't be that this was his question. אלא זיהום אזיהום קא קשיא ליה. You must say his kashya was between the din of זיהום itself. This din that you're allowed to patch the place of the bark, we find a contradiction in that din.

דקתני, because in this beraita that he brought, it says: מתליעין ומזהמין בשביעית, that you're allowed to take the worms out and you're allowed to patch the place of the bark during Shemitah. ורמינהו, and I will ask you a kashya, we learned the Mishnah in Sheviit: מזהמין את הנטיעות, it says that we're allowed to patch the bark of the plant, וכורכין אותן, we're allowed to enwrap them, וקוטמין אותן, and you're allowed to cover them with powder, ועושין להם בתים, and you can make supports for them, ומשקין אותן, and you could water them, but you could do this עד ראש השנה, up to Rosh Hashanah before Shemittah. So it comes out from there: עד ראש השנה אין, only up to Rosh Hashanah before Shemittah you're allowed to do this, בשביעית לא, but during Shemittah you're not allowed to do this. And one of the things mentioned in that Mishnah is מזהמין, is patching the place of the fallen bark. So in this Mishnah it comes out that during Shemittah itself you're not allowed to do this, and in the beraita that he brought, it says that you're allowed to do this during Shemittah. And this was the question he had. But the Gemara says if this was the question, the answer could be: ודילמא, maybe כדרב עוקבא בר חמא, maybe he holds like Rav Ukva bar Chama, דאמר Rav Ukva bar Chama, Rav Ukva bar Chama said, תרי כשקושי הוו. He says there are two kinds of hoeing olive tree: חד לאברויי אילנא, one is that when you do it to strengthen the tree, ואסור, and this will be forbidden, וחד לסתומי פילי ושרי. One is just to close up the cracks and that is מותר, because this means that you close up the cracks in the soil around the roots, so the purpose is only to preserve the tree, but not to make it better. So just like Rav Ukva bar Chama said that there are two kinds of כשקושי, one is אסור and one is מותר, the one to make the tree better is אסור, and the one just to preserve the tree is מותר, הכא נמי, so we could say too, תרי זיאומי הוו. There are two kinds of זיהום, two kinds of covering up the place of the fallen bark: חד לאוקמי אילנא ושרי, one is just to preserve the tree and that is allowed, וחד לאברויי אילנא ואסור, and one is to make the tree better and that is אסור. So it comes out there is no contradiction between the Mishnah and the beraita. In the beraita where it says you're allowed to be מזהם, to smear and cover up the place of the fallen bark on Shemittah, is the kind that you do only to preserve the tree. In the Mishnah where it says you only could do it up to ראש השנה, but not from ראש השנה on, that is the kind that makes the tree better. So it couldn't be that this was his קשיא. אלא therefore you must say, סיכה אסיכה קא קשיא

ליה. His קשיא was the contradiction in the din of smearing it with oil. דקתני, because it said, סכין שמן לגוזם בין במועד בין בשביעית, in the Beraisa it said that you're allowed to smear oil to the tree that already was pruned. Chol Hamoed and on Sheviit you could do it, ורמינהו, and now we will ask you a question. It says in the Mishnah in Sheviit: סכין את הפגין. You're allowed to smear the figs. ומנקבין, and you're allowed to perforate them, make holes in them. ומפטמין אותן, and then you fill up the holes with oil. All this is to make it better, to make it fatter. So you're allowed to do this עד ראש השנה, to ראש השנה before Shemitah. So it comes out עד ראש השנה, אין, up to ראש השנה you're allowed, בשביעית, לא, but during Shemitah itself you're not allowed. So it comes out from this Mishnah that you're not allowed to smear the fruits during Shemitah itself, while in the Beraisa that he brought before, it said בפירוש that you're allowed to smear the place that was pruned with oil in Chol Hamoed and in Sheviit. So it seems as if you are allowed to smear it during Shemitah. And the Gemara says this is no question, because מי דמי? How can you compare the two? הכא אוקומי אילנא ושרי, here in the case of smearing the pruned tree, that is just to preserve the tree, that's why it's allowed. התם, but over there where we say that you're not allowed to fatten, smear with oil the fruit during Shemitah, because פטומי פירא, it is to fatten the פירא, to make it better, ואסיר, that is forbidden. ממילא this is no kashya either. אמר ליה רב סמא בריה דרב אשי לרבינא בר ירמיה - so Rav Sama the son of Rav Ashi said to Rav Yirmiyah, Ravina bar Yirmiyah, or the way it says on the side it's supposed to be Rava bar Yirmiyah, because this is the one that we are talking about here - he said to him, סיכה דמועד אזיחום דמועד קא קשיא ליה. His kashya was the contradiction between the din of smearing during Chol Hamoed and covering up the patch, the place of the fallen bark during Chol Hamoed, that's his kashya. Because as it said in the Beraisa there, that during Chol Hamoed you're not allowed to cover up the place of the fallen bark, but nevertheless it said there that during Chol Hamoed you are allowed to smear oil in the place that was pruned. That's his kashya. מכדי, האי אוקומי והאי אוקומי, after all, both of them are only just to preserve the tree, not to make it better, מאי שנא האי דשרי ומאי שנא האי דאסור? What is the difference? Why is this mutar? Why is smearing oil to the pruned place allowed and to patch up the place of the fallen bark is not allowed? היינו דקאמר ליה, this is what he meant to say when he said, לית נגר ולא בר נגר דיפרקינה, that there is no chacham or son of a chacham is able to answer it. This was the hardship in this braita, and this actually has no answer.

Concerning what we learned before, that the Gemara brings where he says in the braita that אלו הן אבני בית קוליס, אחת מכאן ואחת מכאן ואחת על גביהן, that the stones of בית קוליס is that one is from one side, one is from the other, one is on top. So Rabbeinu Tam asked a question in Tosafot, how can we bichlal mention the name of that avodah zarah? The din is, as it says in פרק ד' מיתות in Sanhedrin דף ס"ג, that you are not allowed to mention a name of avodah zarah, because the pasuk says that ושם אלהים אחרים לא תשמיעו, that the names of the idols should not be mentioned by you. Only those names of avodah zarah that are mentioned in the Torah you are allowed to mention, but if it is not mentioned in the Torah you're not allowed to mention it. And since Markulis is not mentioned in the Torah, so how are we allowed to mention that name? So Rabbeinu Tam says that the real name was not actually Markulis, the real name was כילוס. And כילוס means from the לשון שבח, praise. What the חכמים did, they changed it from the word כילוס to the word קוליס. And that's the meaning of the word Markulis. מר means change, Markulis means it was changed to קוליס. קוליס comes from the word לועג וקולס, which is just the opposite of praise. So this name Markulis is allowed to be said, because this is not the real name of the avodah zarah, on the contrary, this is to make fun of the avodah zarah. Also, when the Gemara said that בנו של קדושים walks on those stones, how come you don't walk? And the Gemara explains that who is בנו של קדושים? This is Rabbi Menachem bar Rabbi Simai. And why do we call him בנו של קדושים? Because he wouldn't even look at the צורה of the coin of the זוז. So Tosafos asks a kashya: why is this a special thing that because of that we call him בנו של קדושים? Al pi din you're not allowed! Because the Gemara says in שבת דף קמ"ט עמוד א': דיוקנא עצמה אסור להסתכל אפילו בחול, that on the picture itself, on the face itself, you're not allowed to look. So it comes out that you are al pi din not allowed to look at the face of the avodah zarah, the picture of the avodah zarah. So when he did not look at the picture that's on the זוז, it wasn't a midat chasidut, it wasn't a hidur, it was a din! So why is it such a special thing that we call him because of that בנו של קדושים? And the reason for the issur is because it says אל תפנו אל האלילים, And therefore we're not allowed to look at it. So when he did not look at it, he only did what is supposed to be done al pi din. And Tosafos answers that since this is a picture on a coin that everyone is used to, there is no issur in looking at it, because as we said before, the whole reason for the issur is because אל תפנו אל האלילים. By looking at it, you will turn to the elilim, but this is only something that you're not used to. But something that's very common, that you constantly see, this will not bring you to turn to the avodah zarah, and therefore the issur does not apply to it. And still he did not look at it, this was a midat chasidut, and because of that they called him Nachum Ish Kodesh Kodashim. Concerning the din that the Gemara brings later on, that אין מטלין ומזממין במועד, that on Chol Hamoed you're not allowed to take the worms out of the tree, and you're not allowed to patch up the place where the bark fell, and the reason is because on Chol Hamoed you're not allowed to do any melachah, so Tosafos says we must say that this is talking in a case that it will not get spoiled if you will wait to do this till after Chol Hamoed. Because if it will be spoiled, so then this is a דבר האבד, and the din is that a דבר האבד you're allowed to do. So obviously we must be talking in a case where it could wait till after Chol Hamoed. Another pshat Tosafos says that be'emet could be that this is a דבר האבד, it will spoil the tree, and nevertheless it is assur because it is a טרחא יתירה. It is a special bother, a very big job, and that is not allowed to be done even if it is a דבר האבד. As the Gemara says in the first perek of Moed Katan, that you're not allowed to be משקה זרעים במי כילון because of a טרחא יתירה. With מי שמים, with water, rainy water, you are allowed to water the זרעים, and the reason is because it's a דבר האבד. But if it is a טרחא יתירה, you're going to do it in such a way which is a very big bother, you're not allowed. So we see from there that if it's a טרחא יתירה, you're not allowed to do it even if it's a דבר האבד. So therefore maybe here, too, this to do this that מטלין ומזממין, maybe is a טרחא יתירה, and therefore even if it's a דבר האבד, you're not allowed to do it on Chol Hamoed. When the Gemara later on brought the Mishnah where it says that you're allowed to water it, but only till Rosh Hashanah, not after Rosh Hashanah, so Rashi explains that lichora, why should you be able to do it till Rosh Hashanah? The din is that עבודת האילן is assur 30 days before Rosh Hashanah, that do work with the tree you're not allowed to do 30 days before Shemitah. So it comes out that you shouldn't be able to water it not only after Rosh Hashanah, but 30 days before Rosh Hashanah. So how come the din is that you're allowed to water it up to Rosh Hashanah? And Rashi answers because this din that you're not allowed to do it for 30 days is only derabbanan, so concerning this din the Rabbanan did not make a gezeirah. But Tosafot asks a kushya, what does Rashi mean? According to Rabbi Akiva, he holds תוספת שביעית דאורייתא. This extra time before Shemitah that you're not allowed to do the avodah is a דין דאורייתא, not a derabbanan. He learns it out from the פסוק בחריש ובקציר תשבות. If it's according to Rabbi Yishmael, he holds that this issur is הלכה למשה מסיני, but it's not derabbanan, so where does Rashi take it that this din is a דין דרבנן? So therefore Tosafot learns that the peshat is that we're talking about שביעית בזמן הזה דרבנן, and it goes according to Rabbi, as Abaye says in Perek Kama d'Moed Katan. And according to Rava the peshat is that since we're talking here about watering it, now watering is only a toldah, and mid'oraita only avot are asur, not toldot. Just like by Shabbat we have avot and toldot, we have melachot which are considered the father, the main melachot, and then we have toldot, children, so to speak, branches of the original main melachot, so by shemittah we also have certain melachot are called avot and certain melachot are called toldot. Now to water is only a toldah, so we will say that only avot did the תורה אסר, but not toldot. Another פשט Tosafot says that only melachot of plowing and planting is d'oraita, but all other melachot are derabbanan. So obviously watering is only a מלאכה דרבנן. Since it's only a מלאכה דרבנן, the rabbanan did not make the issur 30 days before Shemitah. Concerning what you mentioned before from Tosafos that even though normally you're not allowed to mention a name of avodah zarah that was not written in the Torah, but in this case of Markulis they are allowed because the original name was כילוס, which is from the lashon of שבח, from the expression of praise, and the chachamim changed it to קוליס, which is in the lashon of לעג וקלס, which means disgust. So in a case like that they're allowed even if it's not written in the Torah. It seems from Tosafos that this is another way you're allowed to mention a name of avodah zarah: one way is if it was written in the Torah, and another way is if the name was changed to a name of disgust instead of praise. But be'emet we could say that not that this is a second way you're allowed to mention the name of avodah zarah, but in essence, when the Gemara says that you're allowed to name mention a name of avodah zarah which is written in the Torah, it is for the same reason. Because the Yera'im in סימן ע״ה, or in the Yera'im HaShalem it's in סימן רמ״ה, it says that the reason why an avodah zarah which is written in the Torah you're allowed to mention its name is כיון שהתורה הזכירו ודאי נתבזה. נתבטלה. Since the Torah mentioned it, it definitely was נתבטל already. So therefore, there is no more reason not to mention it. But lechora, if we learn the pshat in the Yera'im simply, it's not understood, because how do we know that, that since the Torah mentions it, it's ודאי נתבטל, certainly certainly it was בטל already, who says? Maybe the Torah mentions it, it's not בטל. And the truth is, we find befeirush that there are certain avodah zarot mentioned in the Torah and they were not נתבטל. For instance, the avodah zarah of Ba'al Pe'or which is mentioned in Parashat Balak, and nevertheless, we find many places in Gemara that it wasn't nitbatel. The Gemara says הפוער עצמו לבעל פעור, if you worship the Baal Peor in such and such a way, you are over. Obviously that Baal Peor still existed in the time of the Gemara. And the Gemara in סנהדרין דף ס"ד עמוד א' shows a מעשה בפועל that they worshiped Baal Peor. So we see that עבודה זרה, that's mentioned in the Torah and it's not ודאי נתבטל. So therefore we must say the pshat in the Yereim that he doesn't mean that since it's mentioned in the Torah it's ודאי נתבטל, that it was בעצם בטל. What it means is that since it's mentioned in the Torah, so it's ודאי נתבטל by the Yid who mentions it. Because the עבודה זרה that's mentioned in the Torah, so the פשטות is the purpose of the Torah mentioning the עבודה זרה is to bring out how they are אפס והבל ואין בהם מועיל, that they have no mamash, how false they are. Like for instance, the pasuk in Chukas, קפיטל כ"א פסוק כ"ט, "אבדת עם כמוש", or in Parshas Balak where the Torah speaks about Baal Peor, and it says "ויצמד ישראל לבעל פעור". So the purpose of the story of the Torah is to show how the Yidden by worshipping the Baal Peor were punished. So it comes out that usually, that when the Torah mentions the name of עבודה זרה, it is to show how it is nothing. So therefore we assume that when an Yid mentions the name of עבודה זרה that's written in the Torah, he mentions it with the same תוכן, with the same meaning as it is written in the Torah. And just like when it's written in the Torah it is to be mevatel it, when an Yid mentions that avodah zarah that's written in the Torah, it is also in order to be mevatel it. That's what the Yereim means, you could say. That's the way the Lubavitcher Rebbe shlita explains in Likutei Sichos, פרשת בלק, חלק כ"ג, that the Yereim mean that ודאי נתבטל by the Yid. That just like the Torah meant to be mevatel it, the Yid is also mevatel it when he mentions it. So for the same reason the Torah is allowed to mention it, the Yid is also allowed to mention it. This is me'ein of the din that the Gemara brings down in Sanhedrin, that מותר להתלוצץ באלילים, that you're allowed to make fun of avodah zarah, which means you mention their name, but the purpose of mentioning the name is in order to make fun of it. Which is similar to the ציווי where it says "זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק", we should remember Amalek, and nevertheless, this is no contradiction to the chiyuv of "תמחה את זכר עמלק", that you should end, you should erase, destroy the זכר of Amalek. How could the Torah say remember it? Because if you remember it in order to erase it, you're allowed to do it. The same thing here, you're allowed to mention it because this brings out how it is nothing, how it is batal, so when you're mentioning it, doesn't give it chashivus, adarabah, it brings to the bitul. So we could say that this is actually what Tosafos means: that since the Chachamim changed from the word קילוס to כוליס, so they showed how it's not praised, but it is disgusted, this is the same idea as why an avodah zarah that's mentioned in the Torah you're allowed to mention. Just like

over there you're allowed to mention it because we assume that when you mention the avodah zarah that is mentioned in the Torah, you mean to show how it's nothing, how it's disgusting, similar to what the Torah means with mentioning it, the same way if you make the name a little bit different to show how it is disgusting, you're also allowed. So it comes out that these two inyanim, that you're allowed to mention avodah zarah that's mentioned in the Torah, and also the Tosafos says that if you change the name to a disgust, you're allowed, they're not two separate inyanim, but both of they have the same תוכן.