Sanhedrin 125

אמר ר' אמי זיבח וקיטר וניסך בהעלם אחד אינו חייב אלא אחת אמר אביי מ"ט דר' אמי אמר קרא (שמות כ, ד) לא תעבדם הכתוב עשאן כולן עבודה אחת

'R. Ammi said: If one sacrificed burnt incense and made libations [to an idol] in one state of unawareness, Only one penalty is incurred.' Abaye said: What is R. Ammi's reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does he not agree that prostration is singled out to teach 'separation'? ');">¹</span>

ומי אמר אביי הכי והאמר אביי שלש השתחואות בעבודת כוכבים למה

— Scripture saith, [Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them] nor serve them&nbsp;…<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XX, 5. ');">²</span>

אחת לכדרכה ואחת שלא כדרכה ואחת לחלק

thereby the Writ declares that all idolatrous deeds constitute one act of service. But did Abaye say thus? Did he not say: 'Why is prostration forbidden three times?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 420. n. 4. ');">³</span>

לדבריו דרבי אמי קאמר וליה לא סבירא ליה

Once to prohibit it when it is the normal mode of service, the second even if abnormal; and the third teaches separation'? — He explains R. Ammi's ruling, but disagrees with it himself.

גופא אמר אביי שלש השתחואות בעבודת כוכבים למה אחת לכדרכה ואחת שלא כדרכה ואחת לחלק

To revert to the main text: Abaye said: Why is prostration forbidden three times? Once to prohibit it when it is the normal mode of service, the second even if abnormal, and the third teaches separation' — But is not the normal mode of worship derived from [Take heed&nbsp;… that thou enquire not after their gods saying,] How did these nations serve their gods? [Even so will I do likewise]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 30. ');">⁴</span>

לכדרכה (דברים יב, ל) מאיכה יעבדו הגוים האלה נפקא

— But [amend thus:] one teaches that prostration is forbidden when it is the appropriate but unusual mode of worshipping that deity;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the deity is worshipped by an act of honour, but not prostration. Since the latter too is an act of honour, it is an appropriate mode of service, yet not the usual mode. ');">⁵</span>

אלא אחת כדרכה ושלא כדרכה ואחת לשלא כדרכה ואחת לחלק:

the second forbids it even if it is not the normal mode of service;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And also an inappropriate form, e.g prostration before Baal Peor. Not only is it unusual, but inappropriate too, since the normal mode of worship is by an act of contempt. ');">⁶</span>

המקבלו עליו באלוה האומר לו אלי אתה: אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב כיון שאמר לו אלי אתה חייב

and the third teaches separation.

למאי אי לקטלא מתניתין היא אלא לקרבן

[WHETHER HE] ACCEPTS IT AS A GOD OR SAYS TO IT, THOU ART MY GOD.

ואפילו לרבנן והתניא אינו חייב אלא על דבר שיש בו מעשה כגון זיבוח וקיטור וניסוך והשתחואה ואמר ריש לקיש מאן תנא השתחואה ר' עקיבא היא דאמר לא בעינן מעשה מכלל דרבנן סברי בעינן מעשה

R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha in Rab's name: As soon as he said, 'Thou art my God', he is liable, [Liable] to what? If to execution, this is stated [already] in the Mishnah? — Hence it means liable to a sacrifice. Now, is this so even in the view of the Rabbis? But it has been taught: He [the idolator] is liable [to a sacrifice] only for that which entails an action, e.g., sacrificing, burning incense, making libations, and prostration. Whereon Resh Lakish observed: Which Tanna maintains that a sacrifice is due for prostration? R. Akiba, who rules that a deed entailing [much] action is unnecessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if little action is involved, as in, e.g., prostration, a sacrifice must be brought. The same will apply to a formal declaration of belief, in which the action is very slight. This excludes a mere mental affirmation. ');">⁷</span>

כי קאמר רב נמי לר' עקיבא קאמר

Does this not prove that the Rabbis maintain that [much] action is necessary? [Consequently, in their opinion, the declaration 'Thou art my god' made unwittingly, does not involve a sacrifice]? — Rab's dictum is only in accordance with R. Akiba. But if so, is it not obvious; for it is just like blasphemy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., since blasphemy consists only of speech, and yet R. Akiba rules that a sacrifice is due, it is obvious that for such a declaration, though also consisting only of speech, a sacrifice is likewise due. ');">⁸</span>

לר' עקיבא פשיטא היינו מגדף

— I might think that only for blasphemy does R. Akiba rule that a sacrifice is incurred, since extinction is prescribed for it [if committed deliberately]; but not in this case, since extinction is not prescribed. Therefore Rab teaches that a sacrifice is due, because they [sc. the sacrificing to an idol and the declaring 'thou art my god'] are equalized for it is written, [They have made them a molten calf,] and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and have said, these be thy gods, O Israel [which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXII, 8. ');">⁹</span>

מהו דתימא עד כאן לא מחייב ר"ע קרבן אלא במגדף דכתיב ביה כרת אבל הכא דלא כתיב ביה כרת אימא לא

R. Johanan said: But for the <i>waw</i> in 'who have brought thee up', the wicked of Israel would have deserved extermination.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verb [H] lit., 'they have brought thee up', is in the plural, the sign of which is a waw (u). By using the plural, they shewed that they did not recognise the molten calf as the sole god, but admitted the divinity of the Almighty too. This circumstance in their favour saved them from complete annihilation. ');">¹⁰</span>

קמ"ל דאתקושי אתקוש דכתיב (שמות לב, ח) וישתחוו לו ויזבחו לו ויאמרו וגו'

This is disputed by Tannaim: [It has been taught]: 'Others'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Heb. Aherim represents frequently R. Meir, v. Hor. 13b.] ');">¹¹</span>

א"ר יוחנן אלמלא וי"ו שבהעלוך נתחייבו רשעיהם של ישראל כלייה

say, but for the wow in 'who have brought thee up', the wicked of Israel would have deserved extermination. Thereupon R. Simeon b. Yohai remarked; But whoever associates the Heavenly Name with anything else [as co-deities] is utterly destroyed [lit., 'eradicated from the world'], for it is written, He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord alone, he shall be utterly destroyed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 19. [To associate another deity with God is, according to R. Simeon, a graver offence than the total denial of God's existence.] Hence in his view, had they acknowledged other gods in addition to the Lord, they would the sooner have merited extermination. ');">¹²</span>

כתנאי אחרים אומרים אלמלא וי"ו שבהעלוך נתחייבו רשעיהם של ישראל כלייה

What then is intimated by [the plural in] 'who have brought thee up'? — That they lusted after many deities.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without associating them with God. ');">¹³</span>

אמר לו ר"ש בן יוחאי והלא כל המשתף שם שמים ודבר אחר נעקר מן העולם שנאמר (שמות כב, יט) בלתי לה' לבדו אלא מה תלמוד לומר (שמות לב, ד) אשר העלוך שאיוו אלוהות הרבה:

BUT HE WHO EMBRACES, KISSES IT, SWEEPS OR SPRINKLES THE GROUND BEFORE IT, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The negative precept for embracing etc. is: Turn ye not unto idols (Lev. XIX, 4); for vowing and swearing by its name: and make no mention of the name of other gods (Ex. XXIII, 13). ');">¹⁴</span>

אבל המגפף והמנשק המכבד והמרבץ כו': כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי אלעזר על כולם לוקה חוץ מהנודר בשמו והמקיים בשמו

When R. Dimi came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 390, n. 1. ');">¹⁵</span>

מאי שנא הנודר בשמו והמקיים בשמו דלא לקי משום דהוה ליה לאו שאין בו מעשה הני נמי לאו שבכללות הוא ואין לוקין על לאו שבכללות

he said in R. Eleazar's name: For all these offences he is flagellated, except for vowing or swearing by its name. Now, why for 'Vowing or Swearing by its name'; because it is a negative precept the transgression of which involves no action? But those others too are only forbidden by a negative precept stated in general terms,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a negative precept which does not explicitly forbid a particular action, but a class, as is the case of Turn ye not unto idols. ');">¹⁶</span>

דתניא מנין לאוכל מן הבהמה קודם שתצא נפשה שהוא בלא תעשה תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יט, כו) לא תאכלו על הדם

and for such one is not flagellated? For it has been taught: Whence do we know that the eating of the flesh of an animal before it has expired<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After it has been ritually slaughtered, but before it is actually dead. ');">¹⁷</span>

דבר אחר לא תאכלו על הדם לא תאכלו בשר ועדיין דם במזרק

is forbidden by a negative precept? From the verse, Ye shall not eat anything with the blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 26, 'blood' being understood as a synonym of life. ');">¹⁸</span>

רבי דוסא אומר מניין שאין מברין על הרוגי ב"ד ת"ל לא תאכלו על הדם

Another meaning of Ye shall not eat anything with the blood is, Ye shall not eat the flesh [of sacrifices] whilst the blood is in the sprinkling bowl.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before the sprinkling of the blood. ');">¹⁹</span>

ר' עקיבא אומר מנין לסנהדרין שהרגו את הנפש שאין טועמין כלום כל אותו היום ת"ל לא תאכלו על הדם

R. Dosa said: Whence do we know that the meal of comfort is not eaten for criminals executed by <i>Beth din</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first meal taken by mourners after the funeral is called the se'udath habra'ah, the meal of comfort, lit., 'the meal of refreshment or restoration'(from habra'ah, recovery to health). It is prepared by neighbours, and usually consists of bread with eggs or lentils, these being a symbol of death. B.B. 16a. ');">²⁰</span>

(אמר רבי יוחנן) אזהרה לבן סורר ומורה מנין ת"ל לא תאכלו על הדם

From the verse Ye shall not eat [i.e., observe the funeral meal] for one whose blood has been shed. R. Akiba said: Whence do we know that a Sanhedrin which executed a person must not eat anything on the day of the execution? From the verse, Ye shall not eat anything with the [shedding of] blood. R. Jonathan said: Whence do we derive a formal prohibition against a wayward and rebellious son? From the verse, Ye shall not do anything to cause bloodshed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 70a; since a rebellious son is executed for gluttony, as stated there, the verse is translated, Do not eat (gluttonously), that ye may not be executed (as rebellious sons). ');">²¹</span>

וא"ר אבין בר חייא ואיתימא ר' אבין בר כהנא על כולם אינו לוקה משום דהוה ליה לאו שבכללות

Now, R. Abin b. Hiyya, or, as others state, R. Abin b. Kahana said: For none of these offences is the offender flagellated, because it is a negative precept in general terms.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the commandment, Ye shall not eat with the blood involves many things; and if so, why is there a flogging attached to these other offences? ');">²²</span>

אלא כי אתא רבין א"ר אלעזר על כולן אינו לוקה חוץ מן הנודר בשמו והמקיים בשמו

But when Rabin came, he said in R. Eleazar's name: For none of these [embracing, kissing, etc.] is the offender flagellated, excepting for vowing and swearing by its name. Now, why are these not punished by flagellation: because it is a negative command in general terms? But these too [should be exempt, since they] are forbidden by a negative precept involving no action? That is in accordance with R. Judah, who said: One is flagellated for a negative precept involving no action. For it has been taught: And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 10. ');">²³</span>

מאי שנא אהנך דלא לקי דהוה ליה לאו שבכללות הני נמי לאו שאין בו מעשה נינהו

Now, the Scripture follows up a negative precept with a positive one,

ההוא כר' יהודה דאמר לאו שאין בו מעשה לוקין עליו

דתניא (שמות יב, י) לא תותירו ממנו עד בקר בא הכתוב ליתן עשה אחר לא תעשה