Talmud su Terumot 4:1

The practice of Mercurius is the following: Two stones one touching the other and the third on top of them⁵This does not mean that the third stone lies vertically on top of the other two since this is a very unstable arrangement. It must be that the third stone forms a triangle together with the others; then the third stone is on the altitude of the triangle which is at a right angle to, i. e. “on”, the base line.. If one put down the second one and they warned him because of “it and its young”⁶Lev. 22:28. The text is very elliptic here; it is explained by the following quote from Terumot.
A person is starting to build a rudimentary Mercurius. When he had put down the second stone he decided to sacrifice to the yet unfinished idol and he chose for this purpose an animal and its young. As explained in Sanhedrin, a criminal conviction in rabbinic theory is possible only if criminal intent was proven by the testimony of two eye witnesses that the perpetrator had duly been warned of the criminal nature of his intended act. Also, for one act there can be only one punishment. Slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day is a simple criminal infraction for which no punishment is spelled out in the biblical text. The prescribed punishment for such an act is flogging., he is whipped. Because of idolatry he is stoned⁷One has to read “is not stoned”. Since two stones do not make an idol, even if there was criminal intent no crime was committed.. If he put down the third⁸Then there is an idol and even though it is worshipped by throwing an additional stone, anything which would be part of the service in the Temple when done for an idol is a capital crime whether or not the idol is worshipped in this way.; there is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. ⁹This text to the end of the paragraph is from Terumot7:1 Notes 64–66; Ketubot3:1 (27c l.21). For they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young he is flogged, about idolatry he is stoned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he is cautioned about an animal and its young he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he be cautioned about idolatry.

Rebbi Zeïra asked: Do Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ if it bites by itself but if he made it bite with his hand everybody agrees that biting is biblical? Even if you say that the disagreement arises if he made it bite with his hand, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish sticks with his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: ṭevel disappears in a plurality¹²¹Cf. Terumot 4:1. Note 10, Ma‘serot 5:2, Note 25 ff.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Nahorai said, ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila brought a case before Rebbi Assi; they wanted to say that two form a majority against one. They had not heard that Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi that ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. But did we not state¹²²This must refer to a baraita in the style of the Mishnah, probably dealing with several doughs in one vessel where for all of them there is a doubt and ḥallah cannot be taken from another place. This can only happen if the ṭevel is a small part of the entire dough; in all cases of the Mishnah there is a plurality of profane matter.: “Otherwise, he takes from one for all”? Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees that he separates. Where do they differ? To worry about a second taking. For him who says ṭevel disappears in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he does not worry to take it out a second time¹²³If heave was taken from a mixture of ṭevel and profane food, with more profane than ṭevel, and that heave was then mixed again (as minority component) with profane food, according to R. Simeon ben Laqish there is no doubt that the second mixture never can be biblical dema‘ even in a time when all agricultural commandments in the Land are biblical. Since, in principle, rabbinic ordinances are valid only as “fences around the Law”, there can be no reason to take heave a second time. For R. Joḥanan, if all agricultural commandments in the Land are biblical the second mixture is dema‘ and the heave has to be lifted.. For him who says ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he worries to take it out a second time.