## Sanhedrin Daf 61b

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

מַאי שְׁנָא אִיהוּ מִינַּן דִּידַן? וְ״אִין״ דְּקָאָמְרִי, אַחוֹכֵי עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In **what** way **is he different from us?** The suggestion to worship him is nonsense. **And** the fact **that they say to him: Yes,** is because **they ridicule him.**


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

וּמַתְנְיָתִין: כָּאן בְּיָחִיד הַנִּיסָּת, כָּאן בְּרַבִּים הַנִּיסָּתִים. יָחִיד – לָא מִימְּלַךְ, וְטָעֵי בָּתְרֵיהּ; רַבִּים – מִימַּלְכִי, וְלָא טָעוּ בָּתְרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the contradiction between the ***mishnayot*** can be resolved as follows: **There,** where the mishna states that one is liable for speech alone, the reference is **to an individual** who was **incited; here,** where the mishna indicates that one is not liable for speech alone, it is referring **to** a case of **an incited multitude** of people. The Gemara explains: **An individual** who was incited **does not** typically **change his mind, and he goes astray after** idol worship. Therefore, once he agrees to the suggestion to worship an idol, he has fully accepted the idol upon himself as a god and is liable. By contrast, **a multitude** of people are apt to **change their minds, and** consequently they **do not go astray after** idol worship.


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

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תֹאבֶה לוֹ וְלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֵלָיו״. הָא אָבָה וְשָׁמַע – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: From where do I say** that the *halakha* that one is liable for merely stating that he will worship an idol is referring to an individual who was incited? **As it is written** with regard to one who incites people to engage in idol worship: **“You shall not approve of him, nor listen to him”** (Deuteronomy 13:9), which indicates that if one **approved** of **and listened** to the inciter, stating his intention to engage in idol worship, he is **liable** even if he does not actually worship an idol.


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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי שָׁאנֵי בֵּין נִיסָּת דְּרַבִּים לְנִיסָּת יָחִיד? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״כִּי יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶן אִמֶּךָ״ – אֶחָד יָחִיד הַנִּיסָּת וְאֶחָד רַבִּים הַנִּיסָּתִים, וְהוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב יָחִיד מִכְּלַל רַבִּים וְרַבִּים מִכְּלַל יָחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised an objection to** Rav Yosef’s opinion: **Is** there **a difference** in *halakha* **between** the cases of **an incited multitude** of people **and an individual** who was **incited? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: **“If your brother, the son of your mother,** or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your neighbor who is like your own soul, **incites you** secretly, saying: Let us go and serve other gods” (Deuteronomy 13:7), that **both an individual** who was **incited and an incited multitude** of people are included in this *halakha*, **but the verse singles out the individual from the category of the multitude, and** another verse singles out **the multitude from the category of the individual.**


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

יָחִיד מִכְּלַל רַבִּים, לְהַחְמִיר עַל גּוּפוֹ וּלְהָקֵל עַל מָמוֹנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Torah states separately the *halakhot* of an individual who is incited to engage in idol worship and of an entire city that is subverted to engage in idol worship in order to distinguish between the two cases, as follows: **An individual** who was incited is singled out **from the category of** a subverted **multitude** of people in order **to render** the punishment **to** an individual’s **body** more **stringent.** The individual is executed by stoning, whereas the residents of an idolatrous city are executed by decapitation. **And** an individual was singled out **to render** the treatment of **the property of** an individual who was incited more **lenient,** as it is not destroyed like that of the residents of an idolatrous city.


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

רַבִּים מִכְּלַל יָחִיד, לְהָקֵל עַל גּוּפָם וּלְהַחְמִיר עַל מָמוֹנָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Additionally, the Torah singles out the subverted **multitude** of people **from the category of an individual** who was incited in order **to render** the punishment given **to the bodies of** the residents of an idolatrous city, decapitation, more **lenient** than that given to an individual who was incited, **and to render** the treatment **of their property** more **stringent,** as the city and the property of its residents are burned.


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

בְּהָא מִילְּתָא הוּא דְּשָׁאנֵי, אֲבָל בְּכֹל מִילֵּי כִּי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye concluded his objection to Rav Yosef’s opinion: It can be inferred from the *baraita* that only **with regard to this matter,** i.e., the *halakhot* mentioned in the *baraita*, **is** the *halakha* of an individual who was incited **different** than that of an incited multitude of people, **but with regard to all** other halakhic **matters they are the same.** Therefore, a distinction cannot be made between them with regard to the *halakha* in the case of a verbal commitment to idol worship.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כָּאן – בְּנִיסָּת מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ, כָּאן – בְּנִיסָּת מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים. מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ – מִימְּלֵךְ, מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים – גְּרִיר בָּתְרַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said** that the contradiction between the *mishnayot* is to be resolved as follows: **Here,** where the mishna indicates that one is liable only for actual worship, the reference is **to** one who is **incited by himself,** i.e., no one incited him to idol worship and he made the decision on his own. Whereas **there,** in the mishna that deems one liable for stating that he will worship an idol, the reference is **to** one who is **incited by others.** The reason for the difference is that one who makes the decision **on his own** is apt to **change his mind,** whereas one who is incited **by others is drawn after them** and is unlikely to change his mind.


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תֹאבֶה לוֹ וְלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֵלָיו״. הָא אָבָה וְשָׁמַע – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: From where do I say** that this distinction is correct? **As it is written: “You shall not approve of him, nor listen to him”** (Deuteronomy 13:9), referring to another individual who tried to incite him, and the verse indicates that if one **approved** of **and listened** to the inciter, he is **liable** even for the approval alone.


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

רָבָא אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּנִיסָּת מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, הָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״כָּךְ אוֹכֶלֶת״, ״כָּךְ שׁוֹתָה״, ״כָּךְ מְטִיבָה״, ״כָּךְ מְרֵיעָה״, הָא דְּלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ ״כָּךְ אוֹכֶלֶת״, ״כָּךְ שׁוֹתָה״ כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** Both **this** mishna **and that** mishna are referring **to one incited by others,** and they should be differentiated as follows: **That** mishna, which deems one liable for merely expressing approval, is referring to a case **where** the inciter described the qualities of the idol and **said to him: It eats like this; it drinks like this; it does good** for its worshippers **like this;** and **it harms** those who do not worship it **like this.** In this case, expressing approval verbally suffices to render one liable, as he was evidently convinced by the description. **This** mishna, which indicates that one is not liable for speech alone, is referring to a case **where** the inciter **did not say to him: It eats like this; it, drinks like this,** it does good for its worshippers like this; and it harms those who do not worship it like this.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵאֱלֹהֵי הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיכֶם הַקְּרֹבִים אֵלֶיךָ וְגוֹ׳״. מָה לִי קְרוֹבִים וּמָה לִי רְחוֹקִים? הֲכִי קָאָמַר לָךְ: מִטִּיבוּתָן שֶׁל קְרוֹבִים אַתָּה לָמֵד מָה טִיבוּתָן שֶׁל רְחוֹקִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: From where do I say** that this distinction is correct? **As it is written:** “Let us go and worship other gods…**from the gods of the peoples that surround you, the ones near to you** or the ones far from you” (Deuteronomy 13:7–8). **What** difference is there **to me** whether they are **near, and what** difference is there **to me** whether they are **far?** Why would the distance affect the prohibition? Rather, **this** is what the Torah **is saying to you:** Do not be tempted to listen to the inciter, as **from the nature of** the objects of idol worship that are **near** you, which you recognize to be false, **you can derive what the nature** is **of** the ones that are **far** from you. Therefore, if you are told that there is an idol in a distant land that is real, realize that it is a lie.


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

מַאי לָאו דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: כָּךְ אוֹכֶלֶת, כָּךְ שׁוֹתֶה, כָּךְ מִטִּיבָהּ, כָּךְ מְרֵיעָה? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is from this interpretation that Rava derives his halakhic distinction: **What,** is it **not** referring to a case **where** the inciter described to another the qualities of the idol and **said to him: It eats like this; it drinks like this; it does good** for its worshippers **like this;** and **it harms** those who do not worship it **like this? Conclude from it** that only in such a case is the incited person liable for stating his approval.


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

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: סֵיפָא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi says** that there is a different resolution to the contradiction between the *mishnayot*: **The latter clause** of the mishna (67a), which deems one liable for speech alone, is referring **to an apostate Jew;** since he is already an apostate, his stated commitment to idol worship is certainly final. Consequently, he is liable. By contrast, a regular Jew is not liable for speech alone.


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

רָבִינָא אָמַר: לָא זוֹ אַף זוֹ קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina says** that there is no contradiction; rather, the *tanna* **teaches** the mishna employing the style: **Not** only **this** but **also that.** In other words, the *tanna* first teaches the elementary *halakha* that one who worships an idol is liable, and afterward it teaches the more novel *halakha* that even one who merely says that he will engage in idol worship is immediately liable.


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

אִיתְּמַר: הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מֵאַהֲבָה וּמִיִּרְאָה, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: חַיָּיב, רָבָא אָמַר: פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** that *amora’im* engaged in a dispute concerning the following matter: In the case of **one who worships idols due to** his **love** of another who requested that he bow before the statue, **or due to fear** of someone coercing him to do so, but not due to faith in that idol, what is the *halakha*? **Abaye says:** He is **liable. Rava says:** He is **exempt.**


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

אַבָּיֵי אֲמַר: חַיָּיב, דְּהָא פַּלְחַהּ. רָבָא אָמַר: פָּטוּר, אִי קַבְּלַיהּ עֲלֵיהּ בֶּאֱלוֹהַּ – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Abaye says** he is **liable because he worshipped it. Rava says** he is **exempt,** as the criterion for becoming liable for idol worship is as follows: **If** one sincerely **accepted** the idol **upon himself as a god, yes,** he is liable; but **if** he did **not** accept it sincerely, he is **not** liable.


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

סִימָן: עֶבֶד יִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְמָשִׁיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye attempts to cite several proofs, whose **mnemonic** is: **A slave will bow to the anointed.**


###### Sanhedrin 61b:18
[Sanhedrin 61b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61b:18)

וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּתְנַן: הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֶחָד הָעוֹבֵד כּוּ׳. מַאי לָאו אֶחָד הָעוֹבֵד מֵאַהֲבָה וּמִיִּרְאָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye said: From where do I say** that one who worships idols due to love or fear is liable? **As we learned** in the mishna: **One who worships idols** is executed by stoning. This includes **one who worships** an idol, and one who slaughters an animal as an idolatrous offering, and one who burns incense as an idolatrous offering. **What** is added by the mishna by stating twice: One who worships? **Is it not** to include the case of **one who worships** idols **due to love or due to fear,** in addition to the case of one who worships idols out of faith? Evidently, in this case as well, the worshipper is liable.


###### Sanhedrin 61b:19
[Sanhedrin 61b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61b:19)

וְרָבָא אָמַר לָךְ: לָא, כְּדִמְתָרֵץ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava** could have **said to you** in response that the term: One who worships, should **not** be understood as Abaye suggests but rather **as Rabbi Yirmeya explains** it, namely, that one who worships an idol in its standard manner of worship is liable, and one who sacrifices an idolatrous offering is liable even if that is not the standard manner of worship of that particular idol.


###### Sanhedrin 61b:20
[Sanhedrin 61b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61b:20)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהֶם״ – לָהֶם אִי אַתָּה מִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה מִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְאָדָם כְּמוֹתְךָ. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ נֶעֱבָד כְּהָמָן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא תָעׇבְדֵם״. וְהָא הָמָן מִיִּרְאָה הֲוָה נֶעֱבָד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye** attempts to cite another proof for his opinion. He **said: From where do I say** that one who worships idols due to love or fear is liable? **As it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: **“You shall not bow to them** nor worship them” (Exodus 20:5): **“To them,”** to idols, **you may not bow, but you may bow to a person like yourself;** bowing to a person is merely the acceptance of authority. One **might** have thought that it is permitted to bow **even** to a person who **is worshipped** like a god, **like Haman;** therefore, **the verse states: “Nor worship them,”** i.e., any form of pagan worship is prohibited. Abaye concludes: **And wasn’t Haman worshipped due to fear,** and not because the people considered him a god? Evidently, one who engages in idol worship due to fear is liable.


###### Sanhedrin 61b:21
[Sanhedrin 61b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61b:21)

וְרָבָא: כְּהָמָן וְלֹא כְּהָמָן. כְּהָמָן – דְּאִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְלֹא כְּהָמָן – דְּאִילּוּ הָמָן מִיִּרְאָה, וְהָכָא לָאו מִיִּרְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava** explains this *baraita* as follows: One might have thought that it is permitted to bow even to a person **like Haman** in one regard, **but not like Haman** in all aspects. It is referring to one **like Haman** in **that** Haman **himself was** an object of **idol worship,** as he claimed he was a god, and one who worships a person out of belief in his divinity is liable. **But** the reference is to one who is **not like Haman** in all aspects, **as while Haman** was worshipped **due to fear, and** one who engages in idol worship due to fear is not liable, **here** the reference is to one who worships a person **not due to fear,** but because he believes in that person’s divinity.


###### Sanhedrin 61b:22
[Sanhedrin 61b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61b:22)

וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בְּהֶעְלֵם דָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye** furthermore **said: From where do I say** my opinion? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **an anointed priest,** i.e., the High Priest, unwittingly engaged **in idol worship, Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** He brings an offering **for** the **unwitting act. And the Rabbis say:** A High Priest does not bring an offering **for** an unwitting act of idol worship unless it was due to **a lapse of awareness** concerning the fundamental *halakhot* of idol worship, i.e., he thought that this action was halakhically permitted.


###### Sanhedrin 61b:23
[Sanhedrin 61b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61b:23)

וְשָׁוִין, שֶׁבִּשְׂעִירָה כְּיָחִיד. וְשָׁוִין, שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And they agree that** a High Priest brings **a female goat** as his offering to atone for his act of idol worship, **as** does an ordinary **individual,** and not a bull, as a High Priest brings as a sin-offering for other sins. **And they agree that** a High Priest **does not bring a provisional guilt-offering,** which is ordinarily brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires him to bring a sin-offering. In such a case, he is exempt.


###### Sanhedrin 61b:24
[Sanhedrin 61b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61b:24)

הַאי שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי קָסָבַר בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת הוּא וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לוֹ, הֲרֵי לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם! אֶלָּא דַּחֲזָא אִנְדְּרָטָא וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye infers: **What are the circumstances of** the High Priest’s **unwitting act of idol worship** that is not due to a lack of awareness of the fundamental *halakhot* of idol worship? **If** the High Priest **thought** that a certain building was **a synagogue and bowed to it,** and he then realized that it is a house of idol worship, why should he be obligated to bring an offering, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Since **his heart** was directed **toward Heaven,** it is not even an unwitting transgression. **Rather,** it is a case **where** the High Priest **saw** the **statue** of a person **and bowed to it.**


###### Sanhedrin 61b:25
[Sanhedrin 61b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/61b:25)

אִי קַבְּלֵיהּ עֲלֵיהּ בֶּאֱלוֹהַּ – מֵזִיד הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This case must also be clarified: **If he accepted** that person **upon himself as a god, he is an intentional** transgressor, and he is liable to receive the death penalty and not to bring an offering.