סנהדרין סג

סנהדרין סג

אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: זִיבַּח וְקִיטֵּר וְנִיסֵּךְ בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי? אָמַר קְרָא ״לֹא תָעׇבְדֵם״, הַכָּתוּב עֲשָׂאָן כּוּלָּן עֲבוֹדָה אַחַת.

Rabbi Ami says: If one sacrificed an animal as an idolatrous offering and burned incense and poured a libation, all in the course of one lapse of awareness, he is obligated to bring only one sin-offering. Abaye says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Ami? The verse states: “Nor worship them” (Exodus 20:5). The verse renders all the various rites of worship as one rite.

וּמִי אָמַר אַבָּיֵי הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שָׁלֹשׁ הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאוֹת בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָמָּה?

The Gemara asks: And does Abaye actually say this? But doesn’t Abaye say: Why are there three mentions in the Torah of the prohibition against bowing to an object of idol worship? The prohibition against bowing to an idol appears three times: “You shall not bow to them nor worship them” (Exodus 20:5), “You shall not bow to their gods nor worship them” (Exodus 23:24), and “For you shall bow to no other god” (Exodus 34:14).

אַחַת לִכְדַרְכָּהּ, וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, וְאַחַת לְחַלֵּק.

The reason is that one mention is for an idol for which bowing is its standard manner of worship, and one mention is a prohibition against bowing to an idol even if bowing is not its standard manner of worship, and one mention is to divide idol worship into categories, as one is obligated to bring an offering for every type of worship that he performed. Evidently, Abaye’s opinion is not in accordance with Rabbi Ami’s statement that one is obligated to bring one sin-offering for all of his acts of idol worship.

לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי קָאָמַר, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

The Gemara answers: Abaye stated his reason in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ami, but he himself does not hold accordingly.

גּוּפָא, אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שָׁלֹשׁ הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאוֹת בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָמָּה? אַחַת לִכְדַרְכָּהּ, וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, וְאַחַת לְחַלֵּק.

The Gemara discusses the matter itself that Abaye says: Why are there three mentions of the prohibition against bowing to an object of idol worship? One is for an idol for which bowing is its standard manner of worship, and one is a prohibition against bowing to an idol even if bowing is not its standard manner of worship, and one mention is to divide idol worship into categories.

לִכְדַרְכָּהּ, מֵ״אֵיכָה יַעַבְדוּ הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה״ נָפְקָא.

The Gemara asks: Why is a verse necessary for the prohibition against bowing to an idol for which bowing is its standard manner of worship? That prohibition is already derived from the verse: “Take heed to yourself that you not be ensnared to follow them…saying, how do these nations serve their gods, so I will do likewise” (Deuteronomy 12:30), which indicates that one is liable for worshipping an idol in the manner that the gentiles worship it.

אֶלָּא, אַחַת כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְשֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, וְאַחַת לְשֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, וְאַחַת לְחַלֵּק.

Rather, Abaye’s statement should be understood as follows: One mention of the prohibition is for an idol for which its typical manner of worship is similar to bowing in that the idol is worshipped in an honorable manner, but bowing is not its typical manner of worship, as it is not typically worshipped by bowing. And one mention is a prohibition against bowing to an idol even if it is not similar to its standard manner of worship at all. And one mention is to divide idol worship into categories.

הַמְקַבְּלוֹ עָלָיו בֶּאֱלוֹהַּ, הָאוֹמֵר לוֹ ״אֵלִי אַתָּה״. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ ״אֵלִי אַתָּה״ – חַיָּיב.

§ The mishna includes among those liable for idol worship one who declares that he accepts an idol upon himself as a god and one who says to an idol: You are my god. Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: Once a person said to an idol: You are my god, he is liable even if he did not worship it.

לְמַאי? אִי לִקְטָלָא, מַתְנִיתִין הִיא! אֶלָּא לְקׇרְבָּן.

The Gemara asks: The transgressor is liable to receive what punishment? If he is liable to receive the death penalty, Rav’s statement is superfluous, as this is stated in the mishna. Rather, Rav means that one who does so unwittingly is obligated to bring an offering.

וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן? וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, כְּגוֹן זִיבּוּחַ וְקִיטּוּר וְנִיסּוּךְ וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה. וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאן תְּנָא הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר לָא בָּעֵינַן מַעֲשֶׂה. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי בָּעֵינַן מַעֲשֶׂה.

The Gemara asks: And is this statement true even according to the opinion of the Rabbis? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One is obligated to bring a sin-offering for unwitting idol worship only for a matter, a transgression, that involves an action, e.g., sacrificing an offering, or burning incense, or pouring a libation, or bowing? And Reish Lakish says: Who is the tanna who taught bowing among these examples? It is Rabbi Akiva, who says that we do not require a significant action in order to render one liable to bring a sin-offering; a minimal action is sufficient. By inference, the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva, maintain that we require a significant action. If bowing is not considered a significant action, then all the more so speech alone is not considered a significant action.

כִּי קָאָמַר רַב נָמֵי, לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא קָאָמַר.

The Gemara answers: Rav, too, when he states that one who says to an idol: You are my god, is obligated to bring a sin-offering, he states this according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, פְּשִׁיטָא! הַיְינוּ מְגַדֵּף.

The Gemara asks: If Rav states this according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, isn’t it obvious that the transgressor is obligated to bring a sin-offering? This is identical to the halakha of a blasphemer, whom Rabbi Akiva obligates to bring an offering despite the lack of an action.

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: עַד כָּאן לָא מְחַיֵּיב רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא קׇרְבָּן אֶלָּא בִּמְגַדֵּף, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ כָּרֵת. אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ כָּרֵת, אֵימָא לָא.

The Gemara answers: Rav states this lest you say that Rabbi Akiva obligates one to bring an offering for a transgression that does not involve an action only in the case of a blasphemer, as it is written explicitly with regard to a blasphemer that he receives karet in the verse: “He blasphemes the Lord, and that soul shall be excised [nikhreta] from among his people” (Numbers 15:30). But here, with regard to one who accepts an idol as his god, where karet is not written explicitly, one might say that he is not obligated to bring an offering.

קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִתַּקּוֹשֵׁי אִתַּקּוּשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לוֹ וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ וְגוֹ׳״.

Therefore, Rav teaches us that he is obligated to bring an offering, as the Torah compares the acceptance of an idol as a god to a case of active idol worship; as it is written: “They have made themselves a molten calf, and have bowed to it, and have sacrificed to it, and said: These are your gods, Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt” (Exodus 32:8).

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אִלְמָלֵא וָיו שֶׁבְּ״הֶעֱלוּךָ״, נִתְחַיְּיבוּ שׂוֹנְאֵיהֶם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּלָיָיה.

With regard to the aforementioned verse, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Were it not for the vav in the term: “Which brought you up [he’elukha],” giving it a plural form, the haters of the Jewish people, a euphemism used to refer to the Jewish people themselves, would have been sentenced to destruction for their idol worship. Since they recognized that God had taken them out of Egypt, and thought that He had merely made the golden calf His partner, the Jewish people were spared.

כְּתַנָּאֵי: אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים, אִלְמָלֵא וָיו שֶׁבְּ״הֶעֱלוּךָ״, נִתְחַיְּיבוּ שׂוֹנְאֵיהֶם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּלָיָיה.

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion is like one side of the following dispute between tanna’im: Others say: Were it not for the vav in the term: “Which brought you up [he’elukha],” the haters of the Jewish people would have been sentenced to destruction.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: וַהֲלֹא כׇּל הַמְשַׁתֵּף שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם וְדָבָר אַחֵר נֶעֱקָר מִן הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בִּלְתִּי לַה׳ לְבַדּוֹ״! אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ״? שֶׁאִיוּוּ אֱלוֹהוֹת הַרְבֵּה.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said to him: But isn’t anyone who links the name of Heaven and something else, a euphemism for an idol, uprooted from the world? As it is stated: “He who sacrifices to the gods, save to the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed” (Exodus 22:19). The fact that the Jewish people included God in their idolatrous statement could not have saved them from destruction. Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Which brought you up” in the plural? The verse teaches that the Jewish people desired many gods; they were not satisfied with the golden calf alone.

אֲבָל הַמְגַפֵּף וְהַמְנַשֵּׁק, הַמְכַבֵּד וְהַמְרַבֵּץ כּוּ׳. כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עַל כּוּלָּם לוֹקֶה, חוּץ מֵהַנּוֹדֵר בִּשְׁמוֹ וְהַמְקַיֵּים בִּשְׁמוֹ.

§ The mishna teaches: But with regard to one who hugs an idol, or one who kisses it, or one who cleans it, or one who sprays water before it, he transgresses a prohibition but is not liable to receive capital punishment. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Elazar says: For all of these actions one is flogged, with the exception of the cases stated later in the mishna of one who vows in an idol’s name and one who affirms his statement by an oath in its name.

מַאי שְׁנָא הַנּוֹדֵר בִּשְׁמוֹ וְהַמְקַיֵּים בִּשְׁמוֹ דְּלָא לָקֵי? מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה. הָנֵי נָמֵי לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת הוּא, וְאֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת.

The Gemara asks: What is different about these cases, one who vows in an idol’s name and one who affirms his statement by an oath in its name, that the transgressors are not flogged? It is because they are each an example of a prohibition that does not involve an action. These actions too, namely, hugging or kissing an idol and the like, are not punishable by lashes; one who performs them violates a general prohibition, and one is not flogged for violating a general prohibition, i.e., one that contains several prohibitions.

דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְאוֹכֵל מִן הַבְּהֵמָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ שֶׁהוּא בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם״.

As this principle is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one who eats from an animal before its soul departs is in transgression of a prohibition? The verse states: “You shall not eat with the blood” (Leviticus 19:26), meaning, you shall not eat from the animal while its soul, which is referred to in the Torah as blood, is still within it.

דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם״ – לֹא תֹּאכְלוּ בָּשָׂר, וַעֲדַיִן דָּם בְּמִזְרָק.

The baraita adds: Another matter is derived from the verse “You shall not eat with the blood”: You shall not eat the meat of an offering while its blood is still in the bowl, as it has not yet been sprinkled on the altar. The meat of an offering may be eaten by the priests only after its blood is sprinkled.

רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִין שֶׁאֵין מַבְרִין עַל הֲרוּגֵי בֵּית דִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם״.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Dosa says: From where is it derived that although in general, after a deceased person is buried, the mourners are provided by others with a meal, others do not provide the mourners with a meal after the burial of those executed by the court? The verse states: “You shall not eat with the blood,” which is interpreted to mean: You shall not eat a mourners’ meal after the burial of one who was executed.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְסַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁהָרְגוּ אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ, שֶׁאֵין טוֹעֲמִין כְּלוּם כׇּל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם״.

Rabbi Akiva says: From where is it derived with regard to a Sanhedrin that killed a soul, i.e., that sentenced a person to death, that the judges may not taste anything that entire day that they sentenced him? The verse states: “You shall not eat with the blood.”

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַזְהָרָה לְבֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם״.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is the prohibition against the behavior of a stubborn and rebellious son derived? While the Torah states the punishment given to a stubborn and rebellious son, the prohibition against his actions, namely, stealing money from his parents in order to eat a gluttonous meal of meat and wine in the company of lowly men, is not explicit. The verse states: “You shall not eat with the blood,” which is interpreted to mean that one may not eat in a manner that is punishable by death. This concludes the baraita.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין בַּר חִיָּיא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי אָבִין בַּר כָּהֲנָא: עַל כּוּלָּם אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת.

And Rabbi Avin bar Ḥiyya says, and some say it is Rabbi Avin bar Kahana who says this: For all of the prohibitions that the Sages derive from this verse, one is not flogged for transgressing them, as it is a general prohibition that is referring to several different actions. Therefore, since the prohibition against hugging or kissing an idol is also derived from a general prohibition, it should not be punishable by lashes, contrary to the opinion of Rav Dimi.

אֶלָּא, כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עַל כּוּלָּן אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, חוּץ מִן הַנּוֹדֵר בִּשְׁמוֹ וְהַמְקַיֵּים בִּשְׁמוֹ.

Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he related a different version of what Rabbi Elazar says: For all of the transgressions listed in the mishna one is not flogged, with the exception of one who vows in an idol’s name and one who affirms his statement by an oath in its name.

מַאי שְׁנָא אַהָנָךְ דְּלָא לָקֵי? דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת. הָנֵי נָמֵי לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה נִינְהוּ.

The Gemara asks: What is different about transgressing those prohibitions for which one is not flogged? It is that they are each an example of a general prohibition, as explained previously. These cases too, namely, one who vows or takes an oath in the name of an idol, are included in a prohibition that does not involve an action, and therefore the transgressors are not punishable by lashes.

הָהוּא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה – לוֹקִין עָלָיו.

The Gemara answers: That halakha of Rabbi Eliezer’s is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says with regard to a prohibition that does not involve an action that one is flogged for violating it.

דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר״ – בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה,

As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the Paschal offering: The verse states: “And you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to provide a positive mitzva to burn the leftover meat after the prohibition against leaving it over was violated,

לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

to say that one is not flogged for transgressing the prohibition, as any prohibition that can be rectified by the performance of a positive mitzva does not carry a punishment of lashes. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִן הַשֵּׁם הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְכׇל לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו.

Rabbi Ya’akov says: This is not for that reason. Rather, it is because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action. The transgression is simply the failure to consume all the meat during the allotted time rather than the performance of an action. And one is not flogged for the violation of any prohibition that does not involve an action.

מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: לוֹקִין עָלָיו.

The Gemara concludes: By inference, Rabbi Yehuda holds that in general, one is flogged for the violation of a prohibition that does not involve an action. It can therefore be inferred that one who vows or takes an oath in the name of an idol is liable to be flogged according to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, even though no action is involved.

הַנּוֹדֵר בִּשְׁמוֹ וְהַמְקַיֵּים בִּשְׁמוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הַנּוֹדֵר בִּשְׁמוֹ וְהַמְקַיֵּים בִּשְׁמוֹ, מְנָלַן?

§ The mishna teaches with regard to one who vows in the name of an idol and one who affirms his statement by an oath in its name, that this person is in transgression of a prohibition. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that one who vows in the name of an idol and one who affirms his statement by an oath in its name transgresses a prohibition?

דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְשֵׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תַזְכִּירוּ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״שְׁמוֹר לִי בְּצַד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פְּלוֹנִית״. ״לֹא יִשָּׁמַע עַל פִּיךָ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יִדּוֹר בִּשְׁמוֹ וְלֹא יְקַיֵּים בִּשְׁמוֹ, וְלֹא יִגְרוֹם לַאֲחֵרִים שִׁידְּרוּ בִּשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁיְּקַיְּימוּ בִּשְׁמוֹ.

The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that the meaning of the verse: “And make no mention of the name of the other gods, neither let it be heard out of your mouth” (Exodus 23:13), is that a person may not say to another: Wait for me next to such and such an object of idol worship. The meaning of the statement “neither let it be heard out of your mouth” is that one may not vow in the name of an idol, nor affirm his statement by an oath in its name, nor cause others, i.e., gentiles, to vow in its name or affirm their statements by an oath in its name.

דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״לֹא יִשָּׁמַע עַל פִּיךָ״ – אַזְהָרָה לַמֵּסִית וְלַמַּדִּיחַ.

Alternatively, the statement “neither let it be heard out of your mouth” can be interpreted as a prohibition against one who incites another to worship idols and against one who subverts an entire city to do so. The prohibition against inciting others to engage in idol worship can be derived from this verse.

מֵסִית, בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ וְגוֹ׳״. אֶלָּא, אַזְהָרָה לַמַּדִּיחַ.

The Gemara asks: Why must the prohibition against an inciter be derived from here? It is written explicitly in that regard, in the verse concerning the inciter’s punishment: “And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more of any such wickedness as this is in your midst” (Deuteronomy 13:12). This is clearly a prohibition against inciting others to worship idols. Rather, the verse “neither let it be heard out of your mouth” is a prohibition against one who subverts an entire city to engage in idol worship; this prohibition is not stated elsewhere.

וְלֹא יִגְרוֹם לַאֲחֵרִים שֶׁיִּדְּרוּ בִּשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁיְּקַיְּימוּ בִּשְׁמוֹ. מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ לַאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה שׁוּתָּפוּת עִם הַנׇּכְרִי, שֶׁמָּא יִתְחַיֵּיב לוֹ שְׁבוּעָה וְנִשְׁבָּע בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלּוֹ, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״לֹא יִשָּׁמַע עַל פִּיךָ״.

The baraita teaches: And one may not cause others, i.e., gentiles, to vow in the name of an idol or affirm their statements by an oath in its name. The Gemara comments: The baraita supports the opinion of Shmuel’s father, as Shmuel’s father says: It is prohibited for a person to enter into a partnership with a gentile, lest their joint ventures lead them to quarrel, and his gentile partner will be obligated to take an oath to him, and he will take an oath in the name of his object of idol worship; and the Torah states: “Neither let it be heard out of your mouth,” which includes causing a gentile to take an oath in the name of an idol.

כִּי אֲתָא עוּלָּא, בָּת בְּקַלְנְבוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהֵיכָא בָּת מָר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּקַלְנְבוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָכְתִיב ״וְשֵׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תַזְכִּירוּ״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הַכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה – מוּתָּר לְהַזְכִּיר שְׁמָהּ. וְהָא הֵיכָא כְּתִיבָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״כָּרַע בֵּל קֹרֵס נְבוֹ״.

When Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he lodged in a place called Kalnevo. Rava said to him: And where did the Master lodge? Ulla said to him: In Kalnevo. Rava said to him: But isn’t it written: “And make no mention of the name of the other gods”? Kalnevo is the name of an idol. Ulla said to him: This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to any object of idol worship that is written in the Torah, it is permitted to mention its name. Since one may mention the idol while reading the Torah, it is permitted to mention it altogether. Rava asked: And where is this idol written? Ulla answered: As it is written: “Bel bows down, Nevo stoops” (Isaiah 46:1).

וְאִי לָא כְּתִיבָא – לָא? מֵתִיב רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: רָאָה אַחַת מְרוּבָּה כְּשָׁלֹשׁ, שֶׁהִיא כְּמִגַּדְיוֹן לְשִׁילֹה, שֶׁהֵן שְׁתֵּי טְבִילוֹת וּשְׁנֵי סְפוֹגִין – הֲרֵי זֶה זָב גָּמוּר. אָמַר רָבִינָא: גַּד נָמֵי מִכְתָּב כְּתִיב, דִּכְתִיב ״הָעֹרְכִים לַגַּד שֻׁלְחָן״.

The Gemara asks: And does this mean that if an idol is not written in the Torah, it is not permitted to mention its name? Rav Mesharshiyya raises an objection to this premise from a mishna in tractate Zavim (1:5): If a man saw, i.e., experienced, one gonorrhea-like discharge that lasted as long as three regular gonorrhea-like discharges, which is like the amount of time it takes to walk from the location of the idol Gadyon to Shiloh, which is the amount of time it takes to perform two immersions and two dryings with a towel, he is ritually impure with the impurity status of a full-fledged zav, even though a man generally becomes a zav only after three separate discharges. In any event, the mishna mentions the idol Gadyon. Ravina says: The idol Gad is also written in the Bible; as it is written: “That prepare a table for Gad” (Isaiah 65:11).

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כֹּל לֵיצָנוּתָא אֲסִירָא, חוּץ מִלֵּיצָנוּתָא דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּשַׁרְיָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״כָּרַע בֵּל קֹרֵס נְבוֹ … קָרְסוּ כָרְעוּ יַחְדָּו לֹא יָכְלוּ מַלֵּט מַשָּׂא״.

§ Rav Naḥman says: All types of mockery are forbidden, except for mockery of idol worship, which is permitted, as it is written: “Bel crouches down, Nevo stoops…they stoop, they crouch down together, they could not hold back the burden” (Isaiah 46:1–2). The verse is interpreted as meaning that they crouch in order to defecate and cannot retain their excrement.

וּכְתִיב: ״דִּבְּרוּ … לְעֶגְלוֹת בֵּית אָוֶן יָגוּרוּ שְׁכַן שֹׁמְרוֹן כִּי אָבַל עָלָיו עַמּוֹ וּכְמָרָיו עָלָיו יָגִילוּ עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ כִּי גָּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ״. אַל תִּקְרֵי ״כְּבוֹדוֹ״, אֶלָּא ״כְּבֵידוֹ״.

And it is similarly written: “They speak…the inhabitants of Samaria shall be in dread for the calves of Beth Aven; for its people shall mourn over it, and its priests shall tremble for it, for its glory [kevodo], because it has departed from it” (Hosea 10:4–5). Do not read it as “its glory [kevodo]”; rather, read it as its burden [keveido], meaning that the idol is unable to restrain itself from defecating. These are examples of derogatory statements that are permitted only in reference to idols.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וְעַתָּה יוֹסִפוּ לַחֲטֹא וַיַּעְשׂוּ לָהֶם מַסֵּכָה מִכַּסְפָּם כִּתְבוּנָם עֲצַבִּים וְגוֹ׳״ – מַאי ״כִּתְבוּנָם עֲצַבִּים״? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד עֹשֶׂה דְּמוּת יִרְאָתוֹ וּמַנִּיחָהּ בְּכִיסוֹ, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁזּוֹכְרָהּ מוֹצִיאָהּ מִתּוֹךְ חֵיקוֹ וּמְחַבְּקָהּ וּמְנַשְּׁקָהּ.

Rav Yitzḥak says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And now they continue to sin, and have made for themselves molten images of their silver, according to their own understanding, idols, all of them the work of the craftsmen; of them they say: Those who sacrifice men kiss calves” (Hosea 13:2)? What is the meaning of the expression: “According to their own understanding [kitvunam], idols”? The word kitvunam is interpreted as meaning: According to their image [ketavnitam], and the verse teaches that each and every person would make an image of his god and place it in his pocket. When he would remember it, he would remove it from his bosom and embrace it and kiss it.

מַאי ״זֹבְחֵי אָדָם עֲגָלִים יִשָּׁקוּן״? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק דְּבֵי רַבִּי אַמֵּי: שֶׁהָיוּ כּוֹמָרִים נוֹתְנִים עֵינֵיהֶם בְּבַעֲלֵי מָמוֹן, וּמַרְעִיבִים אֶת הָעֲגָלִים, וְעוֹשִׂין דְּמוּת עֲצַבִּים, וּמַעֲמִידִין בְּצַד אֲבוּסֵיהֶן, וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן לַחוּץ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאוּ אוֹתָן רָצִין אַחֲרֵיהֶן וּמְמַשְׁמְשִׁין בָּהֶן, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה חָפֵץ בְּךָ, יָבֹא וְיִזְבַּח עַצְמוֹ לוֹ.

What is the meaning of the statement: “Those who sacrifice men kiss calves”? Rabbi Yitzḥak of the school of Rabbi Ami says: It means that priests of idol worship would set their eyes on the wealthy, and they would starve the calves that were objects of idol worship, and make statues in the image of those wealthy people, and place those statues next to the troughs of the calves, and they would take those calves outside. When the calves would see those wealthy people, whose image they were used to seeing near their troughs, they would run after them and paw them. At this point the priests would say to that wealthy person: The object of idol worship, the calf, desires you; let the Master come and sacrifice himself to it. The priests would inherit his property.

אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי ״זֹבְחֵי אָדָם עֲגָלִים יִשָּׁקוּן״? ״עֲגָלִים יִשָּׁקוּן לִזְבֹּחַ אָדָם״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל הַזּוֹבֵחַ אֶת בְּנוֹ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֹמֵר לוֹ: דּוֹרוֹן גָּדוֹל הִקְרִיב לוֹ, יָבֹא וְיִשַּׁק לוֹ.

Rava says: That is not the correct interpretation of the verse, as the wording “those who sacrifice men kiss calves” is unsuitable for that interpretation, since in that case the verse should have stated: They make calves kiss to sacrifice men. Rather, Rava says that the verse is to be understood as follows: Whenever anyone sacrifices his son to an object of idol worship, the priest says to him: The Master has sacrificed a great gift [doron] to the idol; therefore, he has the right to come and kiss it. The verse means that the reward of “those who sacrifice men” is to kiss calves.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: ״וְאַנְשֵׁי בָבֶל עָשׂוּ אֶת סֻכּוֹת בְּנוֹת״, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת. ״וְאַנְשֵׁי כוּת עָשׂוּ אֶת נֵרְגַל״, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? תַּרְנְגוֹל. ״וְאַנְשֵׁי חֲמָת עָשׂוּ אֶת אֲשִׁימָא״, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? בַּרְחָא קַרְחָא. ״וְהָעַוִּים עָשׂוּ אֶת נִבְחָן וְאֶת תַּרְתָּק״, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? כֶּלֶב וַחֲמוֹר.

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says with regard to the verse describing the peoples that were settled in Samaria by the Assyrians: “And the men of Babylonia made Succoth-Benoth” (II Kings 17:30); and what is this idol? It is the image of a hen. “And the men of Cuth made Nergal” (II Kings 17:30); and what is it? It is the image of a rooster. “And the men of Hamath made Ashima” (II Kings 17:30); and what is it? It is the image of a bald billy goat. “And the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak” (II Kings 17:31); and what are they? The image of a dog and a donkey.

״וְהַסְפַרְוִים שֹׂרְפִים אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם וְאֶת בְּנוֹתֵיהֶם בָּאֵשׁ לְאַדְרַמֶּלֶךְ וַעֲנַמֶּלֶךְ אֱלֹהֵי סְפַרְוָיִם״, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? הַפֶּרֶד וְהַסּוּס. אַדְרַמֶּלֶךְ – דְּאָדַר לֵיהּ לְמָרֵיהּ בִּטְעִינָה, וַעֲנַמֶּלֶךְ – דְּעָנֵי לֵיהּ לְמָרֵיהּ בִּקְרָבָא.

“And the Sepharvites burned their sons and their daughters in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim” (II Kings 17:31); and what are they? The mule and the horse. And why are they called that? A mule is called Adrammelech because it honors [addar] its master with its load, i.e., because it carries the master’s load, and a horse is called Anammelech because it responds [anei] to its master, assisting him in battle.

אַף חִזְקִיָּה מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה בִּיקֵּשׁ אָבִיו לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ כֵּן, אֶלָּא שֶׁסָּכַתּוּ אִמּוֹ סָלָמַנְדְּרָא.

The Gemara relates: The father of Hezekiah, king of Judea, also attempted to do so to him, i.e., to burn him as an offering to an idol, but his mother rubbed him with the blood of a salamander [salamandera], a creature created out of fire and immune to the effects of fire, whose blood is fireproof.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: יוֹדְעִין הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מַמָּשׁ, וְלֹא עָבְדוּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֶלָּא לְהַתִּיר לָהֶם עֲרָיוֹת בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא.

§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The Jewish people knew that idol worship is of no substance; they did not actually believe in it. And they worshipped idols only in order to permit themselves to engage in forbidden sexual relations in public, since most rituals of idol worship would include public displays of forbidden sexual intercourse.

מֵתִיב רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: ״כִּזְכֹּר בְּנֵיהֶם מִזְבְּחוֹתָם וְגוֹ׳״, וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כְּאָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ גַּעְגּוּעִין עַל בְּנוֹ?

Rav Mesharshiyya raises an objection to this statement from the following verse: “Like the memory of their sons are their altars, and their Asherim are by the leafy trees, upon the high hills” (Jeremiah 17:2). And Rabbi Elazar says that this means that the Jewish people would recall their idol worship like a person who misses his child. This interpretation indicates that they were truly attached to idol worship.

בָּתַר דַּאֲבִיקוּ בַּיהּ.

The Gemara answers: This was the case after the Jewish people became attached to idol worship, at which point they began to actually believe in it. At first, they were drawn to idol worship only due to their lust.

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְנָתַתִּי פִּגְרֵיכֶם עַל פִּגְרֵי גִּלּוּלֵיכֶם״. אָמַר: אֵלִיָּהוּ הַצַּדִּיק הָיָה מְחַזֵּר עַל תְּפוּחֵי רָעָב שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. פַּעַם אַחַת מָצָא תִּינוֹק שֶׁהָיָה תָּפוּחַ וּמוּטָל בָּאַשְׁפָּה.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that the Jewish people engaged in idol worship for its own sake and not for the sake of engaging in forbidden sexual relations: In interpretation of the verse: “And I shall cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols” (Leviticus 26:30), the Sages say that Elijah the Righteous, the prophet, would search for those who were swollen with hunger in Jerusalem. He once found a child who was swollen with hunger and lying in the garbage.

אָמַר לוֹ: מֵאֵיזֶה מִשְׁפָּחָה אַתָּה? אָמַר לוֹ: מִמִּשְׁפָּחָה פְּלוֹנִית אֲנִי. אָמַר לוֹ: כְּלוּם נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר מֵאוֹתָהּ מִשְׁפָּחָה? אָמַר לוֹ: לָאו, חוּץ מִמֶּנִּי. אָמַר לוֹ: אִם אֲנִי מְלַמֶּדְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁאַתָּה חַי בּוֹ, אַתָּה לָמֵד? אָמַר לוֹ: הֵן. אָמַר לוֹ: אֱמוֹר בְּכׇל יוֹם ״שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ ה׳ אֶחָד״. אָמַר לוֹ:

Elijah said to the child: From which family are you? The child said to him: I am from such and such family. Elijah said to him: Isn’t there anyone left from that family? The child said to him: No one is left besides me. Elijah said to him: If I teach you something through which you will live, will you learn it? The child said to him: Yes. Elijah said to him: Say every day “Listen Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The child said to him: