## Sanhedrin Daf 61a

###### Sanhedrin 61a:1
[Sanhedrin 61a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:1)

אֲסוּרָה, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מוּתֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Deriving benefit from the animal is **prohibited,** as it is considered an offering of idol worship, even if its blood was not ultimately sprinkled for idol worship or its forbidden fat burned for that purpose. **And Reish Lakish says:** Deriving benefit from the animal is **permitted.**


###### Sanhedrin 61a:2
[Sanhedrin 61a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:2)

הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֶלָּא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בָּעֵי קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan concludes his analysis: **According to Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who derives this *halakha* from another source, **this** statement in the *baraita* **works out well.** The verse that mentions the slaughter of an animal in idol worship apparently teaches a principle, as it is superfluous with regard to the *halakha* of slaughter itself, as stated in the *baraita*. **But according to Reish Lakish,** who does not derive from any verse that one can have intention from one rite to another rite, **one needs** this **verse** to derive precisely this *halakha*, that one can have intention from one rite to another rite. Consequently, the verse is not superfluous, and it cannot be assumed that it teaches a principle with regard to the forms of idol worship that are punishable by death.


###### Sanhedrin 61a:3
[Sanhedrin 61a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:3)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: וּלְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא בָּעֵי קְרָא? עַד כָּאן לָא קָא אָסַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֶלָּא בְּהֵמָה, אֲבָל גַּבְרָא לָא בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא! וַאֲתָא קְרָא לְחַיּוֹבֵי גַּבְרָא לִקְטָלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa objects to this: And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, does one not need a verse** to teach the *halakha* in a case of intention from one rite to another rite? **Rabbi Yoḥanan** initially **only prohibits** deriving benefit from the **animal; but** if not for this verse, **the man** who slaughtered the animal would **not be liable** to receive **the death** penalty. **And** therefore **the verse comes to render the man liable** to receive **the death** penalty. Therefore this verse is not superfluous according to Rabbi Yoḥanan either.


###### Sanhedrin 61a:4
[Sanhedrin 61a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: וּלְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, מִי בָּעֵי קְרָא? עַד כָּאן לָא קָא שָׁרֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אֶלָּא בְּהֵמָה, אֲבָל גַּבְרָא בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא! מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְהַר, דְּהַר מוּתָּר וְעוֹבְדוֹ בְּסַיִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, objects to** Rava bar Rav Ḥanan’s challenge to the derivation in the *baraita*: **And** even **according to Reish Lakish, does one need a verse** to teach that the one who slaughtered the animal is liable? **Reish Lakish only permits** one to derive benefit from the **animal; but the man is** certainly **liable to** receive **the death** penalty. This is **just as** the *halakha* **is** in the case of **one who bows to a mountain, as** deriving benefit from the **mountain is permitted, but** nevertheless **the one who worshipped it** is liable to be executed **by** the **sword.** Therefore, the verse that states that one who slaughters an offering in idol worship is liable to be executed is superfluous with regard to the issue of intention from one rite to another.


###### Sanhedrin 61a:5
[Sanhedrin 61a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: לְמַאי דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן לְאַבָּיֵי, אֵימָא יָצְאָה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה לְלַמֵּד עַל הַכְּלָל כּוּלּוֹ, ״אֵיכָה יַעַבְדוּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: According to what Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye,** that there is room to **say** that **bowing was singled out** in the verse **to teach, with regard to the entire category,** that any honorable form of worship carries the death penalty, there is a difficulty. With regard to 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, this is stated **to exclude what?**


###### Sanhedrin 61a:6
[Sanhedrin 61a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:6)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: לְמַעוֹטֵי הַפּוֹעֵר עַצְמוֹ לְזוֹבְחִים? מֵהִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה נָפְקָא! מָה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה דֶּרֶךְ כִּיבּוּד, אַף כֹּל דֶּרֶךְ כִּיבּוּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that this verse is stated **to exclude one who defecates before** an idol that is worshipped by **sacrificing** offerings, it is not necessary to derive this *halakha* from this verse, as **it is derived from** the *halakha* of **bowing** to an idol, as follows: **Just as bowing is an honorable** form of worship and is punishable by death, **so too, any honorable** form of worship is punishable by death when performed as idol worship, which excludes an offensive act such as defecating. Therefore, the *halakha* that one is not liable for defecating before an idol can be derived from bowing.


###### Sanhedrin 61a:7
[Sanhedrin 61a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:7)

אֶלָּא, לְמַעוֹטֵי הַפּוֹעֵר עַצְמוֹ לְמַרְקוּלִיס. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ בִּזָּיוֹן הוּא, אַף כֹּל בִּזָּיוֹן? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this verse is stated **to exclude one who defecates before** the idol called **Mercury,** which is not its typical manner of worship. It might **enter your mind to say** that **since** the standard manner of **worship** of Mercury, namely, throwing stones at it, **is** in any event an act of **degradation, so too,** one who performs **any** act of **degradation** as worship of Mercury should be liable. Therefore, the verse **teaches us** that one is liable only for worshiping Mercury in its standard manner of worship.


###### Sanhedrin 61a:8
[Sanhedrin 61a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:8)

אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מִנַּיִן לַזּוֹבֵחַ בְּהֵמָה לְמַרְקוּלִיס שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יִזְבְּחוּ עוֹד אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם לַשְּׂעִירִם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **But** Rava bar Rav Ḥanan’s interpretation of the verses appears to contradict **that which Rabbi Eliezer says: From where** is it derived **that** one who **sacrifices an animal to Mercury is liable? As it is stated: “And they shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to the satyrs”** (Leviticus 17:7).


###### Sanhedrin 61a:9
[Sanhedrin 61a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:9)

אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִכְדַרְכָּהּ, דִּכְתִיב ״אֵיכָה יַעַבְדוּ״, תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָן לְשֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Eliezer explains: **If** the verse **is not** needed for the **matter of** one who worships an idol **in its** typical **manner,** i.e., one who sacrifices an animal as an offering to an idol that is worshipped by sacrificing offerings, **as** the *halakha* in this case **is** already **written** in the aforementioned verse: **“How do** these nations **serve** their gods, so I will do likewise,” **apply it to** the **matter** of one who worships an idol **not in its** typical **manner,** by sacrificing an offering to an idol that is not typically worshipped by sacrificing offerings. Therefore, one who sacrifices an offering to Mercury is liable, even though that is not its typical form of worship.


###### Sanhedrin 61a:10
[Sanhedrin 61a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:10)

שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, מֵהִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to Rava bar Rav Ḥanan, by contrast, **it is derived** that one is liable for worshipping an idol in any honorable manner, even **not in its** typical **manner** of worship, **from** the *halakha* of **bowing.**


###### Sanhedrin 61a:11
[Sanhedrin 61a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:11)

הָתָם, בְּזוֹבֵחַ לְהַכְעִיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** in the verse mentioned by Rabbi Eliezer, the reference is **to one who sacrifices** an offering to Mercury not as a form of worship, but rather **in order to express insolence** toward the Torah prohibition against sacrificing an offering to an idol. It is derived from the verse that this too is a transgression of the prohibition and renders one liable for the death penalty.


###### Sanhedrin 61a:12
[Sanhedrin 61a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:12)

רַב הַמְנוּנָא אִירְכַסוּ לֵיהּ תּוֹרֵי. פְּגַע בֵּיהּ רַבָּה, רְמָא לֵיהּ מַתְנְיָתִין אַהֲדָדֵי: תְּנַן ״הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה״ – עוֹבֵד אִין, אוֹמֵר לָא. וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: ״הָאוֹמֵר ׳אֶעֱבוֹד׳, ׳אֵלֵךְ וְאֶעֱבוֹד׳, ׳נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבוֹד׳״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: **Rav Hamnuna lost his oxen** and went to search for them. **Rabba met him** and **raised** a contradiction **between** two ***mishnayot*. We learned** in the mishna that **one who worships idols** is liable. By inference, one who **worships** idols, **yes,** he is liable, but one who merely **says** that he will worship idols is **not** liable. **But didn’t we learn** in another mishna (67a): **One who says: I will worship** an idol, or: **I will go and worship** an idol, or: **Let us go and worship** an idol, is liable, just as one who actually worships an idol is liable. Evidently, one is liable for merely stating his intention to engage in idol worship.


###### Sanhedrin 61a:13
[Sanhedrin 61a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּאוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי מְקַבְּלוֹ עָלַי אֶלָּא בַּעֲבוֹדָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Hamnuna **said to him:** The mishna here is referring **to one who states: I** intend to **accept** this idol **upon myself** as a god **only through worship.** Consequently, he is liable only when he actually worships it. One who intends to accept the idol as a god immediately is liable even before he actually worships it.


###### Sanhedrin 61a:14
[Sanhedrin 61a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:14)

רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: תַּנָּאֵי שָׁקְלַתְּ מֵעָלְמָא? תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״בּוֹאוּ וְעִבְדוּנִי״ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹטֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said:** This answer is unnecessary; **have you removed the *tanna’im* from the world? It is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who says:** I am a god; **come and worship me, Rabbi Meir deems** him **liable** for incitement to idol worship, **and Rabbi Yehuda deems** him **exempt.**


###### Sanhedrin 61a:15
[Sanhedrin 61a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:15)

הֵיכָא דִּפְלַחוּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – לָא פְּלִיגִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה לְךָ פֶסֶל״. כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּדִיבּוּרָא בְּעָלְמָא. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: דִּיבּוּרָא מִילְּתָא הִיא, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: דִּיבּוּרָא לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: In a case **where** those to whom the inciter spoke subsequently **worshiped** him, **everyone agrees** that the inciter is liable, **as it is written: “You shall not make yourself a graven image”** (Exodus 20:4), which is interpreted to include a case where one establishes himself as a god. **When they disagree** is in a case where the incident ended **in mere speech. Rabbi Meir holds** that **speech is** a significant **matter,** and therefore the inciter is liable for incitement, **and Rabbi Yehuda holds** that **speech is nothing.** Therefore, the contradiction between the *mishnayot* can be resolved by attributing each mishna to a different *tanna*.


###### Sanhedrin 61a:16
[Sanhedrin 61a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:16)

הֲדַר אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא דַּאֲמַרִי, דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּדִיבּוּרָא נָמֵי חַיּוֹבֵי מְחַיֵּיב. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״אֶעֱבוֹד״, ״אֵלֵךְ וְאֶעֱבוֹד״, ״נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבוֹד״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef then said** after reconsidering the matter: **What I said is not correct, as even according to Rabbi Yehuda, one is deemed liable for speech as well. As we learned** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda says: Actually,** one **is not liable unless he says: I will worship,** or: **I will go and worship,** or: **Let us go and worship.** Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is liable even for speech alone, not only for actual worship.


###### Sanhedrin 61a:17
[Sanhedrin 61a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61a:17)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בְּמֵסִית לְעַצְמוֹ וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ ״אִין״ קָמִיפַּלְגִי. מָר סָבַר, מֵסִית לְעַצְמוֹ – שָׁמְעִי לֵיהּ, וְ״אִין״ דְּקָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ קוּשְׁטָא הוּא; וּמָר סָבַר, מֵסִית לְעַצְמוֹ – לָא שָׁמְעִי לֵיהּ, מֵימָר אָמְרִי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Accordingly, **with regard to what** principle do Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda **disagree? They disagree with regard to** the case of one who **incites** others to worship **him, and** the others **say to him: Yes,** we will worship you. **One** Sage, Rabbi Meir, **holds** that when **one incites** others **to** worship **him,** they are apt to **listen to him, and** the response: **Yes, that they say to him, is sincere. And one** Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, **holds** when **one incites** others **to** worship **him,** they are **not** apt to **listen to him,** as **they say** to themselves: