Sanhedrin 120
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> העובד עבודת כוכבים אחד העובד ואחד המזבח ואחד המקטר ואחד המנסך ואחד המשתחוה ואחד המקבלו עליו לאלוה והאומר לו אלי אתה
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. <font>HE WHO ENGAGES IN IDOL-WORSHIP [IS EXECUTED]</font>. IT IS ALL ONE WHETHERHE SERVE IT, SACRIFICE, OFFER INCENSE, MAKE LIBATIONS, PROSTRATE HIMSELF,<font>ACCEPT IT AS A GOD, OR SAY TO IT, 'THOU ART MY GOD.'</font> BUT HE WHO EMBRACES,KISSES IT, SWEEPS OR SPRINKLES THE GROUND BEFORE IT, WASHES IT, ANOINTS IT,CLOTHES IT, OR PUTS ON ITS SHOES, HE TRANSGRESSES A NEGATIVE PRECEPT [BUTIS NOT EXECUTED]. HE WHO VOWS OR SWEARS [LIT. CONFIRMS A THING] BY ITS NAME,VIOLATES A NEGATIVE PRECEPT. <font>HE WHO UNCOVERS HIMSELF BEFOREBAAL-PEOR</font><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Moabite deity. 'That the statements of the Rabbis (on the repulsive mode of worship) are not wholly imaginative and do not take their colouring from the rites of some heathen or antinomian-Gnostic sects is shewn by the fact that the worship of Peor is ridiculed, but nowhere stigmatised as moral depravity, by the Rabbis, which latter might have been expected, had the assertion of the Rabbis been based on the Gnostic cults mentioned.' J. E. s.v. Baal-Peor. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
אבל המגפף והמנשק והמכבד והמרבץ והמרחץ והסך והמלביש והמנעיל עובר בלא תעשה הנודר בשמו והמקיים בשמו עובר בלא תעשה
[IS GUILTY, FOR] THIS ISTHE MODE OF WORSHIPPING HIM. HE WHO CASTS A STONE ONMERCULIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mercurius, a Roman divinity, identified with the Greek Hermes; also a statue or a way-mark dedicated to Hermes, the patron deity of the wayfarer. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אמר רבי ירמיה הכי קאמר אחד העובד כדרכה ואחד המזבח ואחד המקטר ואחד המנסך ואחד המשתחוה ואפילו שלא כדרכה
— R. Jeremiah said: This iswhat is meant: Whether he serve it in its normal way, or sacrifice, makelibations, offer incense, or prostrate himself, even if these acts are notthe normal mode of worshipping that particular deity. Why is blood sprinklingnot included? — Abaye said: Because sprinkling is the same as offeringLIBATIONS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And already included in the Mishnah. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
דתנו רבנן אילו נאמר (שמות כב, יט) זובח יחרם הייתי אומר בזובח קדשים בחוץ הכתוב מדבר תלמוד לומר לאלהים בזובח לעבודת כוכבים הכתוב מדבר
—Our Rabbis taught: Had Scripture written, He that sacrificeth shall be utterlydestroyed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Omitting the words, to any God, Ex. XXII, 19. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
אין לי אלא בזובח מקטר ומנסך מניין ת"ל (שמות כב, יט) בלתי לה' לבדו ריקן העבודות כולן לשם המיוחד
I would have thought thatthe Writ refers to sacrificing without the Templeprecincts;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this is forbidden elsewhere; Lev. XVIII, 3f; 8f. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
לפי שיצאה זביחה לידון בעבודות פנים מניין לרבות השתחואה
therefore Scripture adds:to any God, shewing that it refers to sacrificing toidols.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now the reference must be to sacrificing as an abnormal mode of worship, for the normal act of worship is designated in Heb. by [H] (to serve), and the verse should have read, He who serves any other god by sacrificing to it. Every normal act of service is derived from Deut. XVII, 3. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ת"ל (דברים יז, ג) וילך ויעבוד אלהים אחרים וישתחו להם וסמיך ליה (דברים יז, ה) והוצאת את האיש ההוא וגו'
From this I know only thatsacrificing [as an abnormal act or worship] is punishable: Whence do I learnthe same of offering incense and making libations? — From the additionalwords, save unto the Lord alone, whereby the Writ restricted all these servicesto the worship of the Divine<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. Shem Hameyuhad, v. p. 408, n. 1. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יכול שאני מרבה המגפף והמנשק והמנעיל ת"ל זובח
teaching that the latterapplies to all services performed within the Templeprecincts,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The penalty of death for idolatry is stated in Deut. XVII, 2-5; If there be found among you … a man or woman that hath wrought wickedness … And hath gone and served other gods and prostrated himself before them … thou shalt stone them with stones, till they die. 'And hath gone and served other gods' is a general statement, not particularizing any mode of service. Consequently, the verse in Ex. XXII, 19, which ordains the death penalty for sacrificing, is a singling out of a particular service from the general proposition of Deut. XVI, 3. Now it is one of the principles of exegesis that in such a case the particularized statement is intended to illumine and define the general proposition as a whole: thus just as sacrificing is a form of service performed within the Temple precincts (in lawful worship), so the general statement, 'and hath … served other gods' refers to such services, e.g., sprinkling of the blood, offering incense, and making libations. But prostration was not a mode of worship within the Temple precincts. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
זביחה בכלל היתה ולמה יצאה להקיש אליה ולומר לך מה זביחה מיוחדת שהיא עבודת פנים וחייבין עליה מיתה אף כל שהיא עבודת פנים וחייבין עליה מיתה
whence can it be extendedto include prostration? — From the verse, And he hath gone and served othergods, and prostrated himself beforethem,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 3. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
אמר מר הייתי אומר בזובח קדשים בחוץ הכתוב מדבר זובח קדשים בחוץ כרת הוא
From this we learn thepunishment: whence do we derive the formal prohibition? From the verse, Forthou shalt prostrate thyself to no othergod.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXIV, 14. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
סלקא דעתך אמינא כי אתרו ביה קטלא כי לא אתרו ביה כרת קמ"ל
I might think that I may alsoinclude embracing, kissing, and putting on its shoes [as punishable bydeath]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since prostration is specially stated, I might think that it teaches that for any act of adoration, even if it is not the normal mode of worship, and not performed within the Temple precincts, just as prostration, guilt is incurred. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
דאיתמר השוחט בהמה לזרוק דמה לעבודת כוכבים ולהקטיר חלבה לעבודת כוכבים רבי יוחנן אמר
wherefore was it singledout? — That a comparison therewith might be drawn, and to teach you: justas sacrificing is distinguished, in that it is a service within the Templeprecincts, and the death penalty is incurred through it, so for all servicesperformed in the Temple precincts [in lawful worship] one is liable to death[when performing them idolatrously]. Hence prostration was singled out toillumine itself alone, whilst sacrificing was singled out to throw lightupon the general proposition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if prostration was singled out in order to throw light upon the general law, viz., that for paying honour to an idol in any shape one is liable to death, why should sacrificing have been singled out too, since thereby one certainly honours the deity? ');"><sup>19</sup></span> The Master stated: 'I would have thought that the Writ refers to sacrificingwithout the Temple precincts'. But is that not punishable byextinction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kareth, v. Glos. cf. Lev. XVIII, 3f; 8f; whilst here the penalty of death is decreed. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> — I might have thought:if he was warned, he is executed; if not, he is punished by extinction. Itis therefore taught otherwise. Raba, son of R. Hanan asked Abaye: Let us say that prostration was singledout in order to throw light upon the general law; and if you answer, in thatcase, why was sacrificing singled outtoo?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 411, n. 9. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> To throw light upon itself,viz., that the intention to perform one act in the service of idolatry, evenif made during the performance of another [non-idolatrous] act, renders oneliable to punishment. For it has been taught: If one slaughtered a cow withthe intention of sprinkling its blood and burning its fat idolatrously, —R. Johanan said,