Sanhedrin 63a (סג.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara returns to the matter itself:

Rabbi Ami said: If one sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in a single lapse of awareness,

he is liable to only one offering.

Abaye said: What is the reason for Rabbi Ami’s ruling?

Why does he hold that bowing did not emerge to divide the acts into separate transgressions?

The verse says

[Exodus 20]

several times

“You shall not worship them,”

and

the verse

which is superfluous

made them all one form of worship.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And did Abaye really say this,

that one is liable to only one offering, in accordance with Rabbi Ami’s opinion?

But Abaye said: Why did the Torah mention bowing

three times

in connection with idolatry? One is for worshipping it in its usual manner, one is for worshipping it in an unusual manner, and one is to divide the acts into separate transgressions.

And we answer: Abaye

was speaking according to Rabbi Ami’s position. But as for himself,

Abaye

does not hold accordingly.

The Gemara returns to the matter itself. Abaye said: Why did the Torah mention bowing three times in connection with idolatry? One is for worshipping it in its usual manner, and one is for worshipping it in an unusual manner,

That is, had the Torah mentioned bowing only once, we would have understood it as referring only to worship in the usual manner. But since the Torah mentioned bowing an additional time, it reveals that one is liable for bowing whether that is its usual manner of worship or not.

And one is to divide the acts into separate transgressions.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Why

would

bowing

in its usual manner

have to be mentioned by the Torah?

After all,

[Deuteronomy 12]

it is derived from the verse: “How did these nations worship their gods?”

Rather, one mention is for worshipping it in its usual manner or in an unusual manner,

meaning that if bowing was its usual manner of worship, or even if bowing was not its usual manner but the customary manner of worshipping it was with honor, one is liable for bowing to it. However, we would not have imposed liability for one who bows to Peor, since its manner of worship is through degradation rather than honor;

and one mention is for worshipping it in an unusual manner,

referring to one who bows to Peor, whose manner of worship is through degradation, whereas bowing is an act of honor. The second mention in the verse teaches that he is liable;

and one is to divide the acts into separate transgressions.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who accepts it as a deity,” meaning one who says to it: “You are my deity.”

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said that Rav said: Once he says to it, “You are my deity,”

even though he did not worship it,

he is liable.

The Gemara discusses this ruling:

For what purpose?

For which matter did Rav state this law?

If

it is with regard

to execution

for intentional transgression, this is already stated in

our Mishna,

our Mishna

is the source.

Rather, it is with regard to an offering

for an unwitting transgression.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Even according to the Rabbis,

did Rav say that he must bring an offering if he unwittingly believed that it was permitted to accept it as a deity, despite the fact that this involves no action? But the Rabbis dispute Rabbi Akiva concerning the liability of one who blasphemes, and hold that he is exempt from an offering because it involves no action.

And it was taught in a beraita: He is liable

for a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression involving idolatry

only for an act that involves action, such as sacrificing, burning incense, pouring a libation, or bowing.

And

concerning this

Reish Lakish said: Who is the tanna

who holds that one must bring an offering even for

bowing?

It is Rabbi Akiva, who says: We do not require an action.

By inference, the Rabbis hold that we do require an action

in order to render him liable for an offering. But one who accepts it as a deity performs no action.

The Gemara answers:

When Rav stated his ruling as well, he was speaking according to Rabbi Akiva,

and not according to the Rabbis.

But the Gemara raises a difficulty: What did Rav teach?

According to Rabbi Akiva, it is obvious

that one who says, “You are my deity,” is liable to bring an offering, because

that is precisely the case of one who blasphemes!

“Blessing,” meaning cursing, the Divine Name.

The Gemara answers:

It might have been thought that Rabbi Akiva renders one liable for an offering only in the case of one who blasphemes, since a punishment of karet is written with regard to it. But here,

in the case of one who accepts it as a deity,

since no karet is written with regard to it,

say that he is not liable. Rav therefore teaches us that the one who sacrifices to idolatry, for whom karet is written, is likened

to one who accepts it as a deity, for whom karet is not written,

as it is written

[Exodus 32]: “And they bowed down to it, and they sacrificed to it, and they said: These are your gods, O Israel.”

[Exodus 32]: “And they bowed down to it, and they sacrificed to it, and they said: These are your gods, O Israel.”

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Had it not been for the letter vav in the word “who brought you up,”

which causes the verse to be read in the plural—meaning that they did not completely deny the Всевышний, but merely joined the calf with Him—

the enemies of Israel

[a euphemistic expression]

would have been sentenced to annihilation.

This matter is

subject to a tannaitic dispute:

Others say: Had it not been for the letter vav in the word “who brought you up,” the enemies of Israel would have been sentenced to annihilation.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said to him: But anyone who joins the Name of Heaven with something else is uprooted from the world, as it is stated

[Exodus 22]

“Only to the Lord alone!”

Rather, what is the meaning of the verse

[Exodus 32]

“who

brought you up”?

They desired

for themselves

many deities.

That is, they did not join the Name of the Всевышний with something else; rather, they accepted additional deities upon themselves, in addition to the acceptance of His divinity, which they continued to maintain.

We learned in the Mishna:

“But one who embraces it, kisses it, honors it, or sweeps before it, and so forth.”

When Rav Dimi came, he said that Rabbi Elazar said: For all of these one receives lashes, except for one who vows in its name

of another deity,

or fulfills

a vow or swears

in its name.

The Gemara discusses this:

What is different about one who vows in its name and one who fulfills a vow in its name, that he does not receive lashes? Because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action.

These too,

such as one who embraces it or kisses it and the like,

are a “general prohibition,”

as the Gemara will explain,

and one does not receive lashes for a general prohibition.

As it was taught in a beraita: From where is it derived that one who eats from an animal before its soul departs violates a prohibition?

The verse states—

[Leviticus 19]

“You shall not eat over the blood.”

Alternatively: “You shall not eat over the blood”—

you shall not eat the meat

of a sacrifice

while

the

blood

of the sacrifice

is still in the bowl.

Rabbi Dosa says: From where is it derived that one may not provide the mourners

with the mourners’ meal—the first meal they eat, supplied by others—

for those executed by the court?

The verse states: “You shall not eat over the blood,”

over the blood of one executed by the court.

Rabbi Akiva says: From where is it derived concerning a Sanhedrin that executed a person

that its members may not taste anything throughout that entire day?

The verse states: “You shall not eat over the blood.”

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A warning for a stubborn and rebellious son—where is it derived?

The verse states: “You shall not eat over the blood.”

He may not eat a meal that will bring about his execution.

And Rabbi Avin bar Ḥiyya, and some say Rabbi Avin bar Kahana, said: For all of these he does not receive lashes, because it is a general prohibition.

And if so, embracing, kissing, and the like, all of which are derived from a single prohibition, constitute a general prohibition, and one does not receive lashes for it.

Rather, when Ravin came

to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael,

he said that Rabbi Elazar said:

Indeed,

for all of them he does not receive lashes—

except for one who vows in its name or fulfills a vow in its name.

The Gemara discusses this:

What is different about those others,

all of them,

that he does not receive lashes—

because it is a general prohibition? These too,

one who vows or swears,

are prohibitions that do not involve an action!

That ruling follows Rabbi Yehuda, who says: One receives lashes for a prohibition that does not involve an action.

As it was taught in a beraita:

[Exodus 12]

“You shall not leave any of it until morning”—

the verse comes to place a positive mitzva

of burning it

after a prohibition

of leftover meat,