Commentary for Avodah Zarah 100:10

The baraita distinguishes between an idolater who uses stones from a Mercurius to pave the roads, in which case a Jew can walk on the roads, and a Jew who uses these stones, in which case it is prohibited for the Jew to walk on the roads. But Rabbah b. Yirmiyah cannot explain this distinction. “Carpenter” here seems to be a nickname for a scholar, probably due to the high level of skill a carpenter needs to shape his material.

Sheshet explains both the difficulty and the solution. The difficulty was how can we annul a sacrificial offering. If these stones are considered offerings they, unlike idols, can never be annulled. The answer is that for an offering to be prohibited it must be like something offered on the altar, and the stones are not like the offerings we put on the altar. The stones are more like an idol and therefore when the idolater treats them with a lack of sanctity, they become permitted.

This case is unrelated to our larger topic and is brought here because it has the same format and same rabbis as the previous story. Two time periods are being compared—the Sabbatical year when one cannot plant or work the field and “hol hamoed,” the intermediate days of the festivals of Sukkot and Pesah when certain types of work should not be performed. But again, no one can solve the statement.

Ravina first needs to figure out what the difficulty is. If we think the difficulty is in figuring out why one can treat the tree on the Sabbatical year but not on the festival, this is not a difficulty. The Torah prohibits certain types of agricultural work but there is no prohibition of exertion. Taking care of the tree is not one of those forbidden labors. But on the festival it is prohibited to do all sorts of activities that require exertion. This would include taking care of the tree. So this should not be a difficulty at all.

The Talmud now suggests that the difficulty is why placing manure is permitted while pruning is prohibited. But this too can be easily explained. It is permitted to preserve a tree during hol hamoed and the sabbatical year. One need not let the tree die and evidently placing manure on cuts in the tree is meant to prevent them from dying. But pruning strengthens the tree and is therefore prohibited.

The next possible difficulty is that our baraita that permits placing manure on the tree during the Sabbatical year contradicts another baraita that allows this only during the time leading up to the Sabbatical year. During the Sabbatical year itself, it is forbidden.

This difficulty also may be solved. There may be two different kinds of placing manure on the branch—one is to strengthen the tree, and this is prohibited. The other is to preserve the tree and is permitted.

Again, the Talmud tries to claim that our baraita, which allows smearing oil on the tree, contradicts another baraita which allows smearing oil on unripe figs but only before the Sabbatical year, not on the Sabbatical year itself. But again, this is not really a difficulty. In our case the oil is being smeared on the tree to preserve it after it was pruned. Again, preserving the tree is permitted. But smearing oil on unripe figs is to fatten them up and it is prohibited.

Finally we get an answer as to what the difficulty is. It is forbidden to place manure on the tree on the festival while it is permitted to smear oil. But both actions are for preserving the tree—so why is one permitted and the other forbidden?

Breaking the stick in front of the idol is considered an act of idolatry and thus if an Israelite does so he is liable. But throwing the stick at or in front of the idol is not considered an act of idolatry, and thus one who does so is exempt. But why the difference? After all, both have a certain amount of similarity to an act performed in the Temple. Breaking the stick is like slaughtering an animal, and throwing the stick is like sprinkling the blood.
Rava explains the difference. For an act to be like sprinkling blood it needs to be an act that is broken up into several parts. When one sprinkles blood on the altar, it is done in parts. Since the stick is thrown all at once, one is not liable.

Trigger warning—this one is a bit gross.
The idol here is worshipped by giving it feces or urine. But when it comes to the feces this seems to be like “unbroken sprinkling” for which one should not, according to Rava, be liable. Rava resolves the difficulty by saying that it refers to moist excrement, where there is “broken up sprinkling.” The feces does not all land at the same time.
Don’t say I didn’t warn you. But aren’t you glad you are not part of the group that worships this idol?