Sanhedrin 122

מ"ש איהו מינן דידן ואין דקאמרי אחוכי עליה

'Wherein does he differ from us'? and in saying 'yes' they were but mocking him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore he is not treated as a seducer, the likelihood of his obtaining a hearing being so remote ');">¹</span>

ומתני' כאן ביחיד הניסת כאן ברבים הניסתים יחיד לא מימלך וטעי בתריה רבים מימלכי ולא טעו בתריה

The two Mishnahs however are to be reconciled thus: The first Mishnah refers to a multitude who were seduced; the second to an individual. For an individual will not reconsider his resolve, hence he will surely go astray after the seducer; but a multitude do reconsider [because they discuss it with each other], and will therefore not go astray after the seducer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore in their case guilt is incurred only for actual worship; but in the case of a single individual the mere declaration is punishable. ');">²</span>

אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דכתיב (דברים יג, ט) לא תאבה לו ולא תשמע אליו הא אבה ושמע חייב

R. Joseph said: Whence do I know it [that the seducer is liable in the case of an individual]? — From the verse, [If thy brother&nbsp;… entice thee&nbsp;…] Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut XIII, 9, referring to an individual. ');">³</span>

איתיביה אביי מי שאני בין ניסת דרבים לניסת יחיד והתניא (דברים יג, ז) כי יסיתך אחיך בן אמך אחד יחיד הניסת ואחר רבים הניסתים והוציא הכתוב יחיד מכלל רבים ורבים מכלל יחיד

Hence, if he consented and hearkened unto him [declaring that he would do as the seducer urged], guilt is incurred. Abaye demurred to this: Is there any difference whether the one or the many are seduced? Surely it has been taught: If thy brother, the son of thy mother, entice thee;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 7. ');">⁴</span>

יחיד מכלל רבים להחמיר על גופו ולהקל על ממונו

it is all one whether the one or the many are seduced. Scripture however excludes an individual from the law pertaining to a multitude, and a multitude from the provisions of an individual; [viz..] an individual is excluded from the law pertaining to a multitude, in that his person is punished with greater severity, whilst his property is treated with greater leniency, whilst a multitude are excluded from the law of an individual, being personally punished with greater leniency, but their property is treated with greater severity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIII, 13-17 treats of a multitude that are seduced; they are to be decapitated (an easier death than stoning), and their properly destroyed. Deut. XVII, 2-5 deals with an individual (or individuals) who engage in idol worship; he is to be stoned, but nothing is said about his property, whence it may be concluded that it is left intact. Thus the individual is excluded from the law pertaining to the multitude, and vice versa, there being an aspect of greater severity and leniency in each. ');">⁵</span>

רבים מכלל יחיד להקל על גופם ולהחמיר על ממונם

Hence the distinction is only in this respect, but in all other matters they are alike.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refutes R. Joseph's distinction between an individual and a multitude. ');">⁶</span>

בהא מילתא הוא דשאני אבל בכל מילי כי הדדי נינהו

Abaye therefore answered thus:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difficulty presented by the two Mishnahs. ');">⁷</span>

אלא אמר אביי כאן בניסת מפי עצמו כאן בניסת מפי אחרים מפי עצמו מימלך מפי אחרים גריר בתרייהו

The first Mishnah refers to one who is self-persuaded, the second to enticement by others; if he is self-persuaded, he may reconsider the matter [therefore he is punished only if he actually engages in worship]; but if he is enticed by others, he will be dragged after them [therefore for his mere assertion the penalty is merited]. Abaye said: Whence do I know this? From the verse, Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him: hence if he consented and hearkened [unto the seducer by affirmation] he is liable.

אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דכתיב לא תאבה לו ולא תשמע אליו הא אבה ושמע חייב

Raba said: Both Mishnahs deal with one who was seduced by others; the second Mishnah refers to a seducer who [described the idol's might] saying. 'it eats thus,' 'it drinks thus,' 'it does so much good and so much harm;' but the first Mishnah treats of a seducer who did not thus descant upon the idol's greatness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently his listener is likely to reconsider his resolve, and therefore punishment is not imposed until actual worship. ');">⁸</span>

רבא אמר אידי ואידי בניסת מפי אחרים הא דא"ל כך אוכלת כך שותה כך מטיבה כך מריעה הא דלא א"ל כך אוכלת כך שותה כו'

Raba said, Whence do I learn this? — From the verse, [<i>If thy brother … entice thee&nbsp;… saying let us go and serve other gods;&nbsp;…] Namely, of the gods of</i> &nbsp; &nbsp; <i>the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee or far from thee</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 8. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דכתיב (דברים יג, ח) מאלהי העמים אשר סביבותיכם הקרובים אליך וגו' מה לי קרובים ומה לי רחוקים הכי קא"ל מטיבותן של קרובים אתה למד מה טיבותן של רחוקים

Now, what does it matter whether they are far or near? — But the Writ means this: from the character of the near idols you can learn the nature of the distant ones.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A seducer generally seeks to entice one to worship distant idols by describing their great power, but avoids mention of the near ones, which his victims would themselves know to be powerless; therefore Scripture warns one against such enticement, by pointing out that the near (and known) idols are an object lesson for the distant ones. Scripture thus assumes that such blandishments were used. ');">¹⁰</span>

מאי לאו דאמר ליה כך אוכלת כך שותה כך מטיבה כך מריעה ש"מ

Surely then it means that the seducer had said to the seduced; 'It eats thus, it drinks thus, it does so much good and so much harm.' This proof is conclusive.

רב אשי אמר סיפא בישראל מומר

R. Ashi said; The second Mishnah refers to a non-conforming Israelite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore his mere assertion is sufficient to condemn him, as it is certain that he will keep it. But an observant Israelite may reconsider his desire. ');">¹¹</span>

רבינא אמר לא זו אף זו קתני

Rabina said: The two Mishnahs teach 'not-only-this. but-even-that.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Mishnah states that the death penalty is imposed for engaging in idol worship, the second adds that this is so not only for actually worshipping idols but also for the mere statement of intention. Both Mishnahs will then refer to the same kind of Jew. ');">¹²</span>

איתמר העובד עבודת כוכבים מאהבה ומיראה אביי אמר חייב רבא אמר פטור

It has been taught; <font>If one engages in idolatry through love or fear</font> [of man, but does not actually accept the divinity of the idol], Abaye said, he is liable to punishment; but Raba said, <font>he is free from a penalty</font>. Abaye ruled that he is liable, since he worshipped it; but <font>Raba said that he is free: only if he accepts it as a god is he liable,</font> but not otherwise.

אביי אמר חייב דהא פלחה רבא אמר פטור אי קבליה עליה באלוה אין אי לא לא:

Mnemonic; '<i>ebed yishtahaveh lemoshiah</i>.)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Lit. 'The servant shall bow down to the anointed one.' Three passages are adduced, whose catchwords are respectively Service, Prostration, The Anointed One. S. Funk (Die Juden in Babylonien, P. 94. n. 2) sees in this mnemonic an allusion to the Christians' acceptance of Jesus, 'the servant' being the title claimed by those who worship him as the Messiah. ');">¹³</span>

סימן עב"ד ישתחו"ה למשי"ח:

Abaye said, how do I know it? Because we have learnt, <font>HE WHO ENGAGES IN IDOL WORSHIP</font>, IT IS ALL ONE WHETHER HE SERVE IT etc. Surely it means: whether he serve it through love or fear, [or whether he sacrifice to it as a god].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, as in supra 60b the difficulty arises, what is meant by 'whether he serve it', Seeing that all other actions mentioned are forms of service. Abaye therefore proposes this solution. ');">¹⁴</span>

ואמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתנן העובד עבודת כוכבים אחד העובד כו' מאי לאו אחד העובד מאהבה ומיראה

But Raba answers you: That is not so, but as R. Jeremiah resolved the difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 60b. ');">¹⁵</span>

ורבא אמר לך לא כדמתרץ רבי ירמיה

&nbsp; &nbsp; Abaye [further] said, Whence do I know it? For it has been taught: <i>Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex, XX, 5. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא (שמות כ, ד) לא תשתחוה להם להם אי אתה משתחוה אבל אתה משתחוה לאדם כמותך יכול אפילו נעבד כהמן ת"ל (שמות כ, ד) ולא תעבדם והא המן מיראה הוה נעבד

thou mayest not bow down to them, but thou mayest bow down to a human being like thyself. I might think that this applies even to one who is worshipped, like Haman; but the Writ adds, <i>nor serve them</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. This phrase is superfluous, and is therefore so interpreted. ');">¹⁷</span>

ורבא כהמן ולא כהמן כהמן דאיהו גופיה עבודת כוכבים ולא כהמן דאילו המן מיראה והכא לאו מיראה

But <font>Haman was thus served through fear</font>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that idolatry (which includes worshipping a human as a divinity) is forbidden even when done through fear. ');">¹⁸</span>

ואמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא כהן משיח בעבודת כוכבים רבי אומר בשגגת מעשה וחכמים אומרים בהעלם דבר

Raba, however, explains it thus: 'like Haman, but not altogether so. <font>[To bow down to one] 'like Haman'</font> [is forbidden], <font>since he set himself up as a divinity;</font> 'but not altogether so,' for <font>Haman was worshipped through fear</font>, whilst the prohibition of this verse applies only to a voluntary action.

ושוין שבשעירה כיחיד ושוין שאין מביא אשם תלוי

Abaye said: Whence do I know it? — For it has been taught: [As for an anointed High priest's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until the destruction of the First Temple, High Priests were consecrated by anointing (Ex. XXVIII, 41; XXX, 30; Lev, VII, 36. X, 7); and one thus consecrated was called Kohen ha-mashiah (the anointed priest). But during the second Temple, when no anointing took place (Sifra Zaw, Par. 3 ch, v.). they were consecrated by investiture in the official garments of the High Priesthood. Such a high priest was called merubeh begadim, i.e., distinguished by a larger number of garments (eight as against the ordinary priest's four). ');">¹⁹</span>

האי שגגת מעשה דעבודת כוכבים ה"ד אי קסבר בית הכנסת הוא והשתחוה לו הרי לבו לשמים אלא דחזא אנדרטא והשתחוה לו

[liability to a sacrifice] for [unwitting] idol-worship — Rabbi said: It holds good even if his inadvertency was in respect of the action only. But the Sages say, There must have been forgetfulness of the [principal] law itself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the thing (in itself)'. This is in reference to Lev. IV, 2f: If soul shall sin through ignorance… If the priest that is anointed do sin&nbsp;… then let him bring for his sin&nbsp;… etc. In Hor. 7b it is deduced that by ignorance in the case of the anointed priest is meant an inadvertence; viz., the action involving a complete forgetfulness of the prohibition on his part, as against an ordinary individual who has to bring an offering even if his inadvertency was only in regard to the action, but not to the prohibition itself. Now the Sages maintain that this applies to all sins, including idolatry. But Rabbi rules that if idolatry be committed inadvertently by the anointed Priest, though without forgetting that it is forbidden, he is still obliged to offer a sacrifice like an ordinary individual. ');">²⁰</span>

אי קבליה עליה באלוה מזיד הוא

They agree, however, that his sacrifice is a she-goat, as that of a private individual [who committed idolatry inadvertently].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though in Lev. IV, 3, a young bullock is prescribed as the sacrifice for an anointed Priest's inadvertent sin, yet in the ease of idolatry, even the Sages agree that he is treated as an ordinary individual, who offers a she-goat: Num. XV, 27. And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she-goat of the first year for a sin offering. By 'any soul' one understands even a High Priest; and 'sin' is interpreted as referring to idol-worship. ');">²¹</span> They also agree that he is not bound to bring the guilt offering of doubt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one is in doubt whether he has committed a sin, for the certain (unwitting) transgression of which a sin-offering must be brought, he is bound to bring a guilt offering of doubt (Lev. V, 17-19). This, however, does not apply to a High Priest. Now, even if the doubt is in respect of idolatry, though Rabbi assimilates the High Priest in this case to the common people as to the measure of inadvertency required, he nevertheless concurs with the Sages that the High Priest differs from others, in that he need not bring a guilt-offering of doubt. All this is deduced from Scripture in Hor. 7b. ');">²²</span> Now, how can the act of idol-worship be committed unwittingly? If he [saw an idolatrous shrine,] thought it to be a synagogue, and bowed down to it. — surely his heart was to heaven!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, he has not even inadvertently committed idolatry. ');">²³</span> But it must mean that he saw a royal statue and bowed down to it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was customary to set up royal statutes to which homage was paid. This was quite permissible. But occasionally a royal statue was actually worshipped; thereafter it was forbidden to make obeisance to it. ');">²⁴</span> now, if he accepted it as a god, he is a deliberate sinner;