Sanhedrin 123

ואי לא קבליה עליה באלוה לא כלום הוא אלא לאו מאהבה ומיראה

whilst if not, his action was not idolatrous at all. Hence, it surely must mean that he worshipped it idolatrously, through love or fear.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without knowing that this is idol worship. This constitutes inadvertency in respect of the action, but not forgetfulness (or ignorance) of the law, since he knows that idolatry per se is forbidden. Hence this Baraitha supports Abaye's ruling. ');">¹</span>

ורבא אמר לך לא באומר מותר

But Raba answers you thus: His inadvertency arose through his declaring that idolatry is permissible. But if he declares it permissible, is it not forgetfulness of the law? It refers to a declaration that it is entirely permissible; whilst forgetfulness consists of partial confirmation and partial annulment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g if the priest declares: Sacrificing and offering incense to idols are forbidden, but prostration is permitted, that is called ignorance of the law; if he declares that idolatry is not prohibited at all, it is, in Raba's opinion, regarded as inadvertency of action. ');">²</span>

אומר מותר היינו העלם דבר

R. Zakkai recited to R. Johanan: If one sacrificed, offered incense, made libations, and prostrated himself [before an idol] in one state of unawareness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he was not apprised between these actions of their forbidden character, subsequently forgetting it, but was unconscious thereof throughout. ');">³</span>

באומר מותר לגמרי העלם דבר קיום מקצת וביטול מקצת

he is bound to bring only one sacrifice. Thereupon R. Johanan retorted: 'Go, teach this outside'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is incorrect, and not to be admitted to the school as authentic teaching. ');">⁴</span>

תני רבי זכאי קמיה דרבי יוחנן זיבח וקיטר וניסך והשתחוה בהעלם אחד אינו חייב אלא אחת

[But] R. Abba said, This teaching of R. Zakkai is the subject of a dispute between R. Jose and R. Nathan. For it has been taught: The prohibition of kindling [on the Sabbath] was singled out [from the general prohibition of work] to teach that it is merely the object of a negative precept — This is R. Jose's view. R. Nathan maintained, it was particularly specified to indicate 'separation'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Ex. XX, 10, it is stated: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work. This is repeated in XXV, 2, with a special prohibition against kindling a fire, v. 3: Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on the Sabbath day. Now kindling is prohibited by the general law of Ex. XX, 10: why is it singled out? R. Jose answers, to teach that whereas other modes of work are punishable by death, this is merely punishable like any other negative precept (viz., by flagellation). But R. Nathan maintained that it was in order to shew that if one did a number of separate acts on the Sabbath (in one state of forgetfulness) e.g., seething, reaping, and threshing, they are accounted as separate offenses, just as kindling was given as a separate offence, and a sacrifice must be brought on account of each. ');">⁵</span>

אמר ליה פוק תני לברא

Now, on the view that kindling was specified to teach that it is merely the object of a negative precept, prostration too was singled out for that purpose. Whilst if kindling was singled out to indicate 'separation', prostration was likewise singled out for the same reason.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On 63a (infra) it is stated that prostration is specifically forbidden three times: (i) Ex. XX, 5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them, (ii) Ibid. XXIII, 24: Thou shalt not bow down to their Gods, nor serve them; and (iii) Ibid. XXXIV, 14: For thou shalt not bow down to any other god. (The injunctions against prostration in Deut. are not included, since Deut. is a repetition of the preceding books). One prohibition teaches that prostration even as an abnormal mode of worship is forbidden; the second that as a normal mode of worship it is forbidden (v. 63a); and the third intimates 'separation', viz., that if a number of idolatrous acts were unwittingly committed (in one state of ignorance), separate atonement must be made for each. Now, R. Abba holds that interpretation to agree only with the view that kindling was specified in order to teach separation. But on the other view, prostration was singled out to indicate not 'separation' but that its deliberate transgression is the subject of a negative precept and not punished by extinction as other idolatrous acts, involving consequently no sin offering for its unwitting transgression, albeit here the punishment is greater, viz., death instead of extinction (v. Deut. XVII, 3, 5). Consequently, R. Zakkai's statement is not incorrect; it is in accord with the view of R. Jose. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רבי אבא הא דאמר ר' זכאי מחלוקת ר' יוסי ורבי נתן דתניא הבערה ללאו יצאה דברי רבי יוסי

R. Joseph objected: Perhaps R. Jose maintains that kindling was singled out to teach that it is the object of a negative precept, only because he derives 'separation' of different acts of labour from the phrase 'of one of them'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 2. ');">⁷</span>

ורבי נתן אומר לחלק יצאה

For it has been taught: R. Jose said, [If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord, concerning things which ought not to be done,] and shall do of one of them:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">⁸</span>

למאן דאמר הבערה ללאו יצאה השתחואה נמי ללאו יצאה

this teaches that sometimes one sacrifice is incurred for 'all of them' [transgressions], whilst at others for each one [of the transgressions] a separate sacrifice must be brought. Whereon, R. Jonathan remarked, What is the reason of R. Jose [i.e., how does he deduce this from the verse]? — Because It is written, and shall do of one of them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. This is a peculiar construction. The Scripture should have written, 'and shall do one (not of) of them', or, 'and do of them' (one being understood), or, 'and shall do one' (of them being understood). Instead (of which, a partitive preposition is used before each. Hence each part of the pronoun is to be interpreted separately, teaching that he is liable for the transgression of 'one' precept; and for part of one (i.e.. for 'of one'); for 'them' (explained as referring to the principal acts); and for the derivatives 'of them' (acts forbidden because they partake of the same nature as the fundamentally prohibited acts); also, each pronoun reacts upon the other, as explained in the discussion. ');">⁹</span>

למ"ד הבערה לחלק יצאה השתחואה נמי לחלק יצאה

This teaches that liability is incurred for one complete act of violation [i.e., 'one']; and for one which is but a part of one [i.e., 'of one']; and for transgressing actions forbidden in themselves [i.e., 'them'], and for actions [the prohibited nature of which is derived] from others [i.e., 'of them']; further, that one transgression may involve liability for a number of sacrifices [i.e. 'one' = 'them']. whilst many offences may involve but one sacrifice [i.e., 'them' = 'one']. Thus: 'one complete act of violation,' — the writing [on the Sabbath] of Simeon; 'one which is but a part of one,' — the writing of Shem as part of Simeon;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin offering for the unwitting violation of the Sabbath is not due unless a complete action is performed. The writing of a complete word — Simeon — is given as an example. Now, if one commenced writing the word Simeon [H], SHiMe'oN in Hebrew, and only wrote the first two letters thereof, viz., Shem, [H], SHeM, he is also liable, though his intention was only partly fulfilled, because Shem is a complete name in itself; similarly, if he commenced writing Daniel and only wrote Dan. This the Talmud calls one action which is part of another (i.e. — 'of one'). If, however, the part he wrote is not complete in itself, e.g., the first two letters of Reuben, in Hebrew, there is no liability. ');">¹⁰</span>

מתקיף לה רב יוסף דילמא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יוסי התם הבערה ללאו יצאה דנפקא ליה חילוק מלאכות (ויקרא ד, ב) מאחת מהנה

'actions forbidden in themselves' [i.e., 'them'] — the principal acts of labour forbidden on the Sabbath; 'actions [the prohibited nature of which is derived] from others [i.e., "of them"]' — the derivatives;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Labour forbidden on the Sabbath is divided into two categories: (i) fundamental or principal acts, forbidden in themselves and named in the Talmud 'fathers' — 39 are enumerated in Shab. 73a; and (ii) derivative or secondary acts, regarded as species of the former, and called 'toledoth', lit., 'offsprings'. E.g., Sowing, ploughing, and reaping belong to the first category; planting, digging, and vintaging are their respective derivatives. ');">¹¹</span>

דתניא ר' יוסי אומר ועשה מאחת מהנה פעמים שחייב אחת על כולן פעמים שחייב על כל אחת ואחת

'One transgression may involve liability for a number of sacrifices [i.e., "one" = "them"]' — e.g., if one knew that it was the Sabbath [and that some work is forbidden on the Sabbath] — but was unaware that these particular acts are forbidden;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, though he violated only one injunction, viz., the sacredness of the Sabbath, yet since he was ignorant of each of these acts, he is regarded as having committed a number of separate inadvertent transgressions, for each of which a sacrifice is due. ');">¹²</span>

וא"ר יונתן מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי דכתיב ועשה מאחת מהנה אחת מאחת הנה מהנה אחת שהיא הנה והנה שהיא אחת

'many offences may involve but one sacrifice [i.e., "them" = "one"]' — e.g., if he was unaware that it was the Sabbath, but knew that his actions are forbidden on the Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, since all his actions were the result of being unaware of one single fact, viz., that it was the Sabbath, only one sacrifice is due. In this discussion 'them' is taken to indicate more than one. We see from this Baraitha that R. Jose derives 'separation' of labour on the Sabbath from this verse, therefore he is bound to interpret the singling out of kindling as teaching something else, viz., that kindling is only subject to a negative precept. ');">¹³</span>

אחת שמעון מאחת שם משמעון

But here [in idol worship]. since separation of actions is not derived from elsewhere, may we not say that all agree [even R. Jose] that prostration was singled out to indicate 'separation'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This difficulty is left unanswered, and a further one is raised. ');">¹⁴</span>

הנה אבות מהנה תולדות אחת שהיא הנה זדון שבת ושגגות מלאכות הנה שהיא אחת שגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות

[But is this so?] May not 'separation' of acts in the case of idolatry too be deduced from 'of one of them'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since that verse refers to sin in general, not particularly to the Sabbath, its deductions apply to idolatry too. ');">¹⁵</span>

אבל הכא דלא נפקא ליה חילוק מלאכות מדוכתא אחריתי דכולי עלמא השתחואה לחלק יצאה

Thus, 'one complete act of idolatry' — sacrificing [to idols]; a part of one [i.e., 'of one'] — the cutting of one organ.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ritual slaughtering and the sacrificing of an animal consists of cutting through two organs, the windpipe and the gullet. Now, if one cuts only one organ (in idol worship) he commits 'part of one' forbidden action. Nevertheless, he incurs the penalty of idolatry, because this partial action is a complete action elsewhere, for a fowl sin-offering needs only the severing of one organ. ');">¹⁶</span>

חילוק מלאכות דעבודת כוכבים נמי תיפוק ליה מאחת מהנה אחת זביחה מאחת סימן אחד

'Actions forbidden in themselves' [i.e., 'them'] — principal acts; i.e., sacrificing, burning incense, making libations, and prostration; 'actions derived from others' [i.e., 'of them'] the derivatives of these — e.g., if he broke a stick before it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in honour of the idol. As an idolatrous act, this being similar to slaughter, whereby the neck is broken, is hence a derivative. A penalty is incurred only if this is the normal mode of worship of that particular deity. 'A.Z. 51a. ');">¹⁷</span>

הנה אבות זיבוח קיטור ניסוך והשתחואה מהנה תולדות שבר מקל לפניה

'one transgression may involve liability for a number of sacrifices,' [i.e., 'one'='them']. e.g., when one knows that it is an idol [and that idolatry is forbidden], but is unaware that the particular acts in question constitute idol-worship;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., knowing that sacrifice is forbidden, but thinking that burning incense and offering libations are permitted. ');">¹⁸</span>

אחת שהיא הנה זדון עבודת כוכבים ושגגת עבודות הנה שהיא אחת שגגת עבודת כוכבים וזדון עבודות

many offences may involve but one sacrifice, [i.e., 'them' = 'one']; if he is unaware that it is an idol, but knows that these acts are forbidden in idol worship?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reasoning is the same as in the case of the Sabbath. ');">¹⁹</span>

האי שגגת עבודת כוכבים היכי דמי אי קסבר בית הכנסת הוא והשתחוה לו הרי לבו לשמים

— Now, how is the unawareness of the idolatrous nature of a thing possible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the answer. ');">²⁰</span>

אלא דחזא אנדרטא וסגיד ליה אי קבליה עליה מזיד הוא אי לא קבליה עליה לא כלום הוא

If one [saw an idolatrous shrine,] thought it to be a synagogue, and bowed down to it? Surely his heart was to heaven! But it must mean that he saw a royal statue and bowed down to it. Now, if he accepted it as a god, he is a deliberate sinner; whilst if not, he has committed no idolatry at all. Hence it must surely mean that he worshipped it idolatrously through love or fear. Now, this interpretation [of the phrase 'of one of them'] is possible on Abaye's view that a penalty is incurred for this. But on Raba's view that there is no liability, what can you say? Hence you will have to explain it that his inadvertency arose through his declaring that idolatry is permissible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though this does not constitute unawareness that a particular thing is an idol and consciousness that these particular acts are forbidden in idol worship, yet it is a case where many transgressions involve but one sacrifice. ');">²¹</span>

אלא מאהבה ומיראה הניחא לאביי דאמר חייב אלא לרבא דאמר פטור מאי איכא למימר

But on that assumption you may solve the problem which Raba propounded to R. Nahman, viz., 'What if one forgot both?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the Sabbath. If one did a number of forbidden acts on the Sabbath, unaware that it was the Sabbath and also ignorant that these particular acts are forbidden on the Sabbath. ');">²²</span>

אלא באומר מותר תפשוט דבעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן העלם זה וזה בידו מהו

[Now on that assumption] you may deduce that he is liable only for one sacrifice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if one declared that idolatry is permissible, it is as though he were unaware that a particular thing was an idol, as explained at the beginning of 62a. Hence if we deduce from the verse that in idolatry only one sacrifice is needed for such inadvertence, the same must apply to the Sabbath. At this stage of the discussion it is assumed, however, that this deduction is impossible, as otherwise Raba would not have propounded his problem. Consequently the verse cannot be applied to idolatry, and R. Abba is justified in regarding kindling and prostration as interdependent both in interpretation and in the resultant laws and R. Zakkai's statement is admissible as correct — according to R. Jose. ');">²³</span>

תיפשוט דאינו חייב אלא אחת הא לא קשיא ותפשוט

— That causes no difficulty: then solve it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the fact that this interpretation solves Raba's problem does not militate against its correctness. Consequently, the verse can be applied to idolatry, and R. Abba's views are again refuted. ');">²⁴</span>

ומי מצית מוקמת להני קראי בעבודת כוכבים דאילו הכא כתיב במשיח פר ובנשיא שעיר וביחיד כשבה ושעירה

But canst thou apply this verse to idolatry? In this chapter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Introduced by the passage under discussion, viz., If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord&nbsp;… and shall do of one of them. ');">²⁵</span>

ואילו בעבודת כוכבים תנן ושוין שבשעירה כיחיד

for the sin of an anointed High priest a bullock is prescribed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 3. ');">²⁶</span>

ותו לא מידי

of a chief, a he-goat;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 22f. ');">²⁷</span>

כי אתא רב שמואל בר יהודה אמר

and of a private individual, a she-goat or a lamb;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 27f, 32. ');">²⁸</span> whilst with respect to idolatry we have learnt: They agree that his sacrifice is a she-goat, as that of a private individual. There is nothing more to be said about the matter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to this no answer is possible. Consequently this verse cannot teach separation of idolatrous actions. In R. Joseph's view, as expressed by his objection, it is deduced from the singling out of prostration. ');">²⁹</span> When R. Samuel b. Judah came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">³⁰</span> he said: