Commentary for Sanhedrin 121:17

במאי קמיפלגי במסית לעצמו ואמרי ליה אין קמפלגי מר סבר מסית לעצמו שמעי ליה ואין דקאמרי ליה קושטא הוא ומ"ס מסית לעצמו לא שמעי ליה מימר אמרי

This is a conflict of Tannaim. For it has been taught: If a man said, 'Come and worship me,' R. Meir declared him liable to death [as any other seducer], but R. Judah ruled that he is not. Now if they [his listeners] did actually worship him, all agree that he is executed, for it is written, Thou shalt not make unto thee any idol.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XX, 4. Hence, since they worshipped him, he is guilty as a seducer. ');">¹³</span> Their dispute is only if they merely affirmed that they would worship him: R. Meir maintaining that a mere affirmation is of consequence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And renders the seducer liable. ');">¹⁴</span> whilst R. Judah holds that a mere affirmation is of no consequence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the first Mishnah is taught in accordance with R. Judah; the second agrees with R. Meir. ');">¹⁵</span> Subsequently R. Joseph said: My answer is groundless for even R. Judah maintains that guilt is incurred for a mere assertion, as it has been taught: R. Judah said: He [the seducer] is not liable to execution unless the seduced person declares, 'I will worship it,' or 'I will go and worship,' or 'Let us go and worship.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus though he did not actually worship it, even R. Judah maintains that he is executed. ');">¹⁶</span> But the dispute of R. Meir and R. Judah applies to a case where he incited others to worship him, and they replied. 'Yes!', R. Meir maintaining that when a man incites others to worship him, he is paid heed to, and the 'yes' was said in earnest; whilst R. Judah holds that no heed is paid to him, for they say,

Explore commentary for Sanhedrin 121:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.