Quoting%20commentary for Sanhedrin 127:20

רבא אמר מולך עראי איכא בינייהו

He that uncovers himself before Baal Peor thereby serves it, even if his intention was to degrade it. He who casts a stone at Merculis thereby serves it, even if his intention was to bruise it. R. Manasseh was going to Be Toratha.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A town in Babylonia, on the road to Pumbaditha, 'A.Z. 26a. It may perhaps be identified with Bithra, on the south of the royal canal, on the Seleucian road (A. Neubauer, Geographie du Talmud, p. 363). ');">¹⁷</span> On the way he was told, 'An idol stands here.' He took up a stone and threw it at the idol's statue. Thereupon they said to him: 'It is Merculis'. He said to them, 'But we have learned, HE WHO CASTS A STONE FOR MERCULIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] i.e., as act of worship. ');">¹⁸</span> THEREBY SERVES IT.' So he went and inquired at the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i> [whether he had done wrong, since his action was a gesture of contempt]. They informed him, We have learned, HE WHO CASTS A STONE AT MERCULIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [He was told that the reading in the Mishnah is [H] AT MERCULIS, implying even as a gesture of contempt.] ');">¹⁹</span> [thereby serves it] — that is to say even if it is merely to bruise it. He said to them, 'Then I will go and remove it.' But they replied, 'Whether one casts a stone or removes it, he incurs guilt, because every stone thus removed leaves room for another.' <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. <font>HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT</font> UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, <font>UNLESS HE DOES BOTH</font>. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On 53a. ');">²⁰</span> teaches idolatry and giving to Molech.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As two separate offences, proving that giving one's seed to Molech is not idolatry. The differences is, that if one sacrificed to Molech, or caused his son to pass through the fire to some other deity, he is not punished. ');">²¹</span> R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the &nbsp;&nbsp;view that <font>Molech worship is not idolatry</font>. For it has been taught, [if one causes his seed to pass through the fire,] whether to Molech or to any other idol he is liable [to death]. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not. Abaye said: R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon and R. Hanina b. Antigonus said the one and same thing. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, that which has just been stated. R. Hanina b. Antigonus — as it has been taught: R. Hanina b. Antigonus said: Why did the Torah employ the word Molech? To teach that the same law applies to whatever they proclaimed as their king, even a pebble or a splinter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Molech is connected with the idea of kingship. This shews that he too regards any fetish as a Molech. ');">²²</span> Rabina<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his view they did not say the one and the same thing. ');">²³</span> said: The difference between them is in respect of a temporary Molech.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., anything which was only temporarily worshipped as Molech, such as a pebble which would obviously not be a permanent idol.] According to R. Hanina b. Antigonus, he is executed even then. But R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon holds that the law applies only to a permanent idol worshipped as Molech. ');">²⁴</span>

Explore quoting%20commentary for Sanhedrin 127:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.