Sanhedrin 63a — the Talmud in English

The essential matter, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

Rabbi Ami said: If he slaughtered, burned incense, and poured a libation in one state of unawareness -

he is liable for only one.

Abaye said: What is the reason of Rabbi Ami?

Why does he hold that bowing did not emerge to divide them?

The verse says

[Exodus 20]

several times

“You shall not serve them,”

and

the

superfluous

verse made them all one service.

And the Gemara asks:

But did Abaye say this,

that he is liable for only one, in accordance with Rabbi Ami’s view?

For Abaye said: Three

times that the verse mentions

bowing in the worship of idolatry—for what purpose? One for its customary manner, one for an unconventional manner, and one to divide them.

And we answer: Abaye

was speaking according to Rabbi Ami’s words. But as for him,

Abaye himself

does not hold so.

The essential matter, Abaye said: Three bowings in the worship of idolatry—for what purpose? One for its customary manner, and one for an unconventional manner,

That is, had only one bowing been written, we would have established it only for its customary manner. But since the verse mentioned an additional bowing, it reveals that one is liable for bowing both in its customary manner and in an unconventional manner.

And one to divide them.

And the Gemara asks: Is it indeed that

for

bowing

in its customary manner

the verse needed to say this?

But

[Deuteronomy 12]

“From ‘How do these nations serve their gods?’ it is derived!”

Rather: One for its customary manner and an unconventional manner,

that is, if the bowing was in its customary manner, or even if the bowing was in an unconventional manner, but the manner of worshipping it is with honor, he is liable for it; but we would not have made one liable for bowing to Peor, since its manner of worship is through disgrace and not through honor,

and one for an unconventional manner,

and here the reference is to one who bows to Peor, whose manner of worship is through disgrace, whereas bowing is through honor; and the second verse came to teach that he is liable,

and one to divide them.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who accepts it upon himself as a god, one who says to it: You are my god.”

Rav Naḥman said that Rabbah bar Avuha said that Rav said: Once he says to it, ‘You are my god,’

even though he did not worship it,

he is liable.

And the Gemara discusses this:

For what purpose?

For what matter did Rav state this law?

If

it is regarding

execution

when intentional, behold,

our Mishna

our Mishna

is.

Rather, for a sacrifice

when unintentional.

And the Gemara asks:

And even according to the Rabbis,

did Rav say that he is liable for a sacrifice if he erred and thought that it was permitted to accept it as a god, despite there being no action? But the Sages disputed Rabbi Akiva concerning liability for one who curses the Name, and hold that he is exempt from a sacrifice because there is no action in it!?

And it was taught in a beraita: He is liable

for a sin-offering for the unintentional sin of idolatry

only for something in which there is an action, such as slaughtering, burning incense, pouring a libation, and bowing.

And

concerning this

Reish Lakish said: Who is the tanna

who holds that one is liable for a sacrifice also for

bowing -

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

by implication, the Rabbis hold that we require an action

in order to make him liable for a sacrifice. But one who accepts it as a god performs no action!?

The Gemara answers:

When Rav spoke as well, he spoke according to Rabbi Akiva,

and not according to the Rabbis.

But the Gemara asks: What did Ravחדש? For

according to Rabbi Akiva it is obvious

that one who says “You are my god” is liable for a sacrifice, because

that is one who curses the Name! “Blessing” [cursing] the Name.

“Blessing,” meaning cursing, the Divine Name.

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say: Rabbi Akiva makes one liable for a sacrifice only in the case of one who curses the Name, because karet is written concerning it, but here,

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

since karet is not written concerning it, -

say that he is not liable; it teaches us that they were made comparable

the one who slaughters for idolatry, concerning whom karet is written, to the one who accepts it as a god, concerning whom karet is not written,

as it is written

[Exodus 32]

“And they bowed to it, and they slaughtered to it, and they said: This is your god, Israel.”

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

which caused the verse to be read in the plural, that is, they did not completely deny the Almighty, but merely joined the calf with Him,

the enemies of Israel would have been liable

[in the language of sagi nahor]

for annihilation.

And this matter is

a matter of dispute among tannaim;

Others say: Had it not been for the vav in “which brought you up,” the enemies of Israel would have been liable for annihilation,

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said to him: But anyone who joins the Name of Heaven with another thing is uprooted from the world. As it is stated

[Exodus 22]

“Except to the Lord alone”!?

Rather, what does it come to teach

[Exodus 32]

“which

brought you up” -

that they desired

for themselves

many divinities.

That is, they did not join the Name of the Almighty with another thing, but accepted another divinity upon themselves, in addition to accepting His divinity, which they continued to maintain.

We learned in the Mishna:

“But one who embraces and one who kisses, one who honors and one who sweeps it, etc.”

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

of another god,

and one who fulfills

and swears

in its name.

And the Gemara discusses this:

What is different about one who vows in its name and one who fulfills in its name, that he does not receive lashes? Because it is a prohibition for which there is no action.

These too,

one who embraces and one who kisses, and the like,

are “a prohibition stated generally,”

as the Gemara will explain,

and one does not receive lashes for a prohibition stated generally!

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 says -

[Leviticus 19]

“You shall not eat over the blood.”

Another matter: “You shall not eat over the blood” -

you shall not eat meat

of a sacrifice,

while

there is still

blood

of the sacrifice

in the bowl.

Rabbi Dosa says: From where is it derived that one does not provide a condolence meal

for mourners [at the condolence meal, which is the first meal they eat from others]

for those executed by the court -

the verse says, “You shall not eat over the blood,”

over the blood of one executed by the court.

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

a person tastes nothing that entire day -

the verse says, “You shall not eat over the blood.”

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A warning for a stubborn and rebellious son—from where? -

the verse says, “You shall not eat over the blood.”

So that he should not eat a meal that will bring about his execution.

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

And if so, one who kisses and one who embraces and the like, all of whom are learned from one prohibition, constitute a prohibition stated generally, and one does not receive lashes for it!

Rather, when Ravin came

to Babylonia from the Land of Israel,

he said that Rabbi Elazar

indeed said:

For all of them he does not receive lashes -

except for one who vows in its name and one who fulfills in its name.

And the Gemara discusses this:

What is different about those others,

for all of them

he does not receive lashes -

because it is a prohibition stated generally; these too,

one who vows and one who swears,

are prohibitions for which there is no action! -

That matter follows Rabbi Yehuda, who says: For a prohibition for which there is no action, one receives lashes.

As it was taught in a beraita:

[Exodus 12]

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

the verse came to place a positive command

of burning

after a prohibition

of sacrificial meat left over,