1)

(a)We query Rebbi Yochanan previous statement from the Beraisa which discusses stones that fell from Markulis, which the Tana renders forbidden - provided they fell from it (implying that one actually saw them falling) and they can be seen close to it ...

(b)... a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan, who learns that if it is known that the stones fell from the big Markulis, they are forbidden under all circumstances, according to all opinions (even though they were not actually seen falling).

(c)To conform with Rebbi Yochanan, Rava amends the wording of the Beraisa from 'she'Nashru' to 'she'Nimtze'u'.

2)

(a)We now query Rebbi Yishmael in the previous Beraisa, who differentiates between two stones and three stones, from another Beraisa, where he says 'Shenayim bi'Tefisah lo - (when they are right next to Markulis) Asuros'.

(b)Whereas three stones he forbids even if they are distant from Markulis.

(c)The Kashya on Rebbi Yishmael in our Mishnah is from his ruling there permitting two stones even within four Amos of it.

(d)Rava solves the problem by establishing the Beraisa by one Tefisah, and our Mishnah by two Tefisos - where there is a mound in between the big Markulis and them, giving it a Din of more than four Amos (since we can be certain that the stones did not fall from the big Markulis [see Tosfos DH 'bi'Mekuravos']).

(e)And the Rabbanan and Rebbi Yishmael in the Beraisa argue - by one Tefisah (where there is nothing in between the big Markulis and the stones) but where the stones are at a distance of more than four Amos from the big Markulis (which Rebbi Yishmael permits but the Rabbanan forbid).

3)

(a)To reconcile Rebbi Yishmael's description of two or three stones next to each other, with the Beraisa, which specifically describes 'Markulis' as two stones next to each other and one going across the top - Rava establishes the latter by the original Markulis exclusively, and Rebbi Yishmael, by the replacement Markulis (where they were not so fussy as to how the three stones were placed).

(b)Some Nochrim - set up a Markulis in Yanai ha'Melech's obsolete palace. Others who did not worship Markulis, took it apart and used the stones to pave the roads and the highways.

(c)Some Chachamim walked along these roads, others did not. Rebbi Yochanan opted for the lenient opinion - because, he argued, if Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Sima'i could walk there, who was he to desist?

(d)Rebbi Yochanan referred to Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Sima'i as B'nan shel Kedoshim - because he refused to look at the faces on the coins (see Tosfos DH 'Hachi Garsinan').

4)

(a)The reason of the Chachamim who declined to walk along those roads is based on the D'rashah of Rav Gidal ... Amar Rebbi, who learned from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Va'yitzamdu le'Va'al Pe'or Va'yochlu Zivchei Meisim" that Zivchei Meisim (the sacrifices brought to Avodah-Zarah) are no more subject to Bitul than Meisim are.

(b)This means, that we categorize the stones of Markulis - not (just) as Avodah-Zarah itself (which is subject to Bitul), but to sacrifices of Avodah-Zarah (which are not).

(c)The Chachamim who permit it disagree, based on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Zove'ach la'Elohim Yochoram, Bilti la'Hashem Levado", which indicates that - sacrifices to Avodah-Zarah are only forbidden if they are similar to the sacrifices that are brought before Hash-m (precluding stones, which are not).

5)

(a)When Rabah bar Yirmiyah arrived in Rav Yosef bar Aba's town, he cited a Beraisa - which draws a distinction between stones of Markulis that a Nochri brings and uses to pave the roads and the highways with - which one is permitted to traverse, and those that are brought and paved by a Yisrael, which are not.

(b)When Rabah bar Yirmiyah added 've'Leis Nagar u'bar Nagar de'Yifrekineih', he meant that - there is no Chacham or son of a Chacham who could explain it, due to Rav Gidal's D'rashah (that we just cited), precluding Zivchei Meisim from Bitul.

(c)Rav Sheishes commented on this - that although he was neither a Chacham nor a ben Chacham, he could explain it ...

(d)... and he gave the same answer that we just gave to explain Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Sima'i (that it is not like the Avodah that is performed before Hash-m, and is therefore permitted).

6)

(a)Another Beraisa that Rabah bar Yirmiyah cited, when he came to Rav Yosef bar Aba's town, permitted Hasla'ah (removing worms from a tree) in the Sh'mitah-year as well as Zihum - when a diseased tree begins losing some of its bark, and one smears it with dung to prevent it from dying.

(b)To reconcile this with 'Mezavlin, which the Sugya in Mo'ed Katan forbids, we establish the latter - refers where one lays manure in the ground, which is a real Melachah.

(c)The Tana - forbids ...

1. ... performing these two Melachos on Chol-ha'Mo'ed, as well as ...

2. ... 'Gizum' (cutting branches to allow fresh branches to replace them) both in the Sh'mitah-year and on Chol-ha'Mo'ed.

(d)The Tana adds 've'Sachin Shemen li'Gezom' - smearing oil on the location of the cut (of the Gizum that he made earlier), to prevent the tree from dying, and it is permitted even on Chol-ha'Mo'ed.

(e)Hasla'ah, Zihum and Sichah are permitted in the Shemitah - because the Torah only forbids a Melachah that enhances the growth of the tree, whilst they merely prevent it from deteriorating.

7)

(a)With regard to this Beraisa too, Rabah bar Yirmiyah refers to a discrepancy that is 'insoluble'. The problem cannot be the fact that ...

1. ... 'Masli'in u'Mezahamin' are permitted in the Sh'mitah, but forbidden on Chol-ha'Mo'ed - because, bearing in mind that the Torah only forbade Melachah in the Sh'mitah, whereas on Chol-ha'Mo'ed even things that are merely 'Tircha' (a trouble to perform) are forbidden too, this is not a problem.

2. ... Zihum is permitted in the Sh'mitah-year, whereas Gizum is forbidden - because, whereas Zihum merely preserves the tree, Gizum actually improves it.

(b)We also reject the suggestion that the problem lies in the Heter to make Zihum in the Sh'mitah, whereas another Beraisa appears to permit it, when the Tana writes 'Mezahamin es ha'Neti'os, ve'Korchin osan (wraps them), ve'Kotmin osan (cuts them) ve'Osin lahem Batim (a wall surrounding the tree which one fills with earth) u'Mashkin osan - ad Rosh ha'Shanah'.

(c)The Tana needs to teach us this because we might otherwise have thought that it is already forbidden - thirty days before the Sh'mitah, like other acts of Avodas Karka.

(d)In any event, we can extrapolate from there that - Zihum is only permitted until Rosh Hashanah of the Sh'mitah, but not during the Sh'mitah year itself, creating a discrepancy between this Beraisa and the Beraisa cited by Rabah bar Yirmiyah, which permits it.

8)

(a)And we answer this with a statement of Rav Ukva bar Chamah, who explains that there are two kinds of 'Kishkushi Ilni' - digging a ditch around olive-trees ...

(b)... one of them which improves the tree, the other, which preserves it.

(c)To answer the discrepancy regarding Zihum, we explain that likewise - there are two kinds of Zihum. The latter Beraisa is speaking about Zihum that improves the tree (see Rabeinu Chananel), whereas the Beraisa cited by Rabah bar Yirmiyah refers to Zihum that merely preserves it.

(d)So we suggest that it is 'Sachin Shemen' that is the source of Rabah bar Yirmiyah's problem. The Mishnah in Shevi'is - permits anointing young figs, making holes in them and filling them with oil up until Rosh Hashanah of the Sh'mitah.

(e)Like we learned earlier, this implies that in the Sh'mitah itself, it is forbidden (whereas the Beraisa earlier permitted anointing after Gizum). This too, is no contradiction however - seeing as the former act of anointing enhances the fruit's growth, whereas the latter act merely preserves it.

9)

(a)Rav Sama b'rei de'Rav Ashi finally explains that Rabah bar Yirmiyah's problem lies in the prohibition of Zihum on Chol-ha'Mo'ed on the one hand, to the Heter of Sichah on Chol-ha'Mo'ed on the other - since both of these only preserve the tree.

(b)The Kashya however - remains unanswered.

10)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav discusses an animal that one worships with a stick by which he means that - one bangs in front of it.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk (in Mishpatim) "Zove'ach la'Elohim Yocharam Bilti la'Hashem Levado", that someone who worships an Avodah-Zarah using one of the Avodos in the Beis-Hamikdash - is Chayav.

(c)And we learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Eichah Ya'avdu ha'Goyim ha'Eileh" that - one is also Chayav for worshipping an Avodah-Zarah in the way that it is normally worshipped, however unconventional the method of worship may be.

(d)In our case therefore, if the animal ...

1. ... was not generally worshipped with a stick at all - he would be Patur even for breaking a stick in front of it.

2. ... was worshipped by throwing a stick in front of it - then he would be Chayav for doing so.

11)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules in our case, that someone who breaks a stick in front of the Avodas-Kochavim - is Chayav, whereas someone who throws it - is Patur.

(b)The former is Chayav - because it resembles the Avodah of Shechitah.

(c)When Abaye asked Rava why, by the same token, one is not Chayav for throwing the stick (seeing as it is similar to Zerikah). Rava replied that - it is not sufficiently comparable to Zerikah, because unlike the latter, it does not break up into particles.

12)

(a)The Beraisa rules that someone who feeds an animal of Avodah-Zarah dung or pours out a pot of urine in front of it (even if it is not normally worshipped in that way [see Tosfos 51a DH 'Chayav']) - is Chayav.

(b)Rava reconciles Rav, who exempts someone who throws a stick in front of an Avodah-Zarah, with this Beraisa - by establishing the Beraisa by soft dung, which breaks up into particles just like blood does.