## Sanhedrin Daf 62a

###### Sanhedrin 62a:1
[Sanhedrin 62a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:1)

וְאִי לָא קַבְּלֵיהּ עֲלֵיהּ בֶּאֱלוֹהַּ – לָא כְּלוּם הוּא. אֶלָּא לָאו, מֵאַהֲבָה וּמִיִּרְאָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if he did not accept** that person **upon himself as a god,** but rather bowed to the statue in order to honor the person, e.g., the king, what he did **is nothing. Rather, is** the *baraita* **not** referring to a case where the High Priest unwittingly worshipped an idol **due to love or due to fear** of someone? This proves that this is also considered idol worship.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:2
[Sanhedrin 62a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:2)

וְרָבָא אָמַר לָךְ: לָא, בְּאוֹמֵר מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava** could have **said to you** in response: **No,** the *baraita* is not referring to this case, but to a case **where** the High Priest **says** to himself that idol worship is **permitted.**


###### Sanhedrin 62a:3
[Sanhedrin 62a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:3)

אוֹמֵר מוּתָּר, הַיְינוּ הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: If the *baraita* is referring to a case where the High Priest **says** to himself that idol worship **is permitted, this is** a case of **a lapse of awareness** concerning the fundamental *halakhot* of idol worship, in which case the Rabbis concede that the High Priest is obligated to bring an offering. Therefore, what is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and that of the Sages?


###### Sanhedrin 62a:4
[Sanhedrin 62a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:4)

בְּאוֹמֵר מוּתָּר לִגְמָרֵי. הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר – קִיּוּם מִקְצָת וּבִיטּוּל מִקְצָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is a case **where he says** to himself that idol worship is **entirely permitted,** whereas the case of **a lapse of awareness** in which the Rabbis concede to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is a case of **upholding part** of the prohibition **and negating** another **part** of it, i.e., a case where the High Priest recognizes that idol worship is prohibited but mistakenly assumes that certain idolatrous activities are permitted.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:5
[Sanhedrin 62a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:5)

תָּנֵי רַבִּי זַכַּאי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זִיבַּח, וְקִיטֵּר, וְנִיסֵּךְ, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Zakkai taught** the following *baraita* **before Rabbi Yoḥanan:** If one **sacrificed** an animal as an idolatrous offering, **and burned** incense as an idolatrous offering, **and poured a libation** to an idol, **and bowed** to an idol, all **in** the course of **one lapse of awareness,** forgetting that these actions were prohibited, **he is obligated** to bring **only one** sin-offering; he is not obligated to bring an offering for each and every act of idol worship.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:6
[Sanhedrin 62a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פּוֹק תְּנִי לְבָרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: Go out** and **teach** it **outside;** i.e., such a *baraita* must not be taught in the study hall, as the *halakha* is that one is obligated to bring an offering for each and every act of idol worship.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:7
[Sanhedrin 62a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:7)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זַכַּאי מַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי נָתָן, דְּתַנְיָא: הַבְעָרָה לְלָאו יָצָאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba says: That which Rabbi Zakkai says** is subject to a tannaitic **dispute** between **Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Natan, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The prohibition against **kindling** a fire on Shabbat **was singled out** from the general category of labor prohibited on Shabbat, and it is written explicitly in the Torah in the verse: “You shall not kindle fire in all your dwelling places on the day of Shabbat” (Exodus 35:3). This was done **to** teach that the prohibition against kindling a fire on Shabbat is unlike other prohibited labors, as it is an ordinary **prohibition,** for which one is not liable to be killed by stoning. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei.**


###### Sanhedrin 62a:8
[Sanhedrin 62a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:8)

וְרַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Natan says:** Kindling a fire is like any other labor prohibited on Shabbat, and **it was singled out to divide** the prohibited labors of Shabbat. In other words, by stating one prohibited labor separately, the Torah teaches that each labor performed on Shabbat constitutes its own separate prohibition. Consequently, one who unwittingly violates several categories of labor is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each and every act of prohibited labor.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:9
[Sanhedrin 62a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:9)

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הַבְעָרָה לְלָאו יָצָאת, הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה נָמֵי לְלָאו יָצָאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Abba concludes: **According to the one who says** that of all the labors that are prohibited on Shabbat, **kindling** a fire on Shabbat **was singled out** to be mentioned in the Torah **to** teach that it is an ordinary **prohibition,** then **bowing,** in the category of idol worship, which is mentioned explicitly in the verse: “You shall not bow to them nor worship them” (Exodus 20:5), **was also singled out to** teach that it is an ordinary **prohibition,** which is not punishable by stoning.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:10
[Sanhedrin 62a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:10)

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הַבְעָרָה לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת, הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה נָמֵי לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Whereas, **according to the one who says** that **kindling** a fire **was singled out to divide** the prohibited labors of Shabbat, **bowing was also singled out to divide** the rites of idol worship, i.e., to teach that one who unwittingly performs several forms of idol worship is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each and every act of idol worship. Therefore, the *baraita* taught by Rabbi Zakkai, which states that such a person is obligated to bring only one sin-offering, is in accordance with the former opinion, i.e., the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:11
[Sanhedrin 62a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:11)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: דִּילְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָתָם הַבְעָרָה לְלָאו יָצָאת, דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ חִילּוּק מְלָאכוֹת מֵ״אַחַת מֵהֵנָּה״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef objects to this: Perhaps Rabbi Yosei says there,** with regard to the *halakhot* of Shabbat, that **kindling** a fire **was singled out to** teach that it is an ordinary **prohibition only because he derives the division of labors** on Shabbat, i.e., that one is obligated to bring an offering for each category of labor that he violated, **from** a different verse, namely: **“From one of them”** (Leviticus 4:2).


###### Sanhedrin 62a:12
[Sanhedrin 62a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:12)

דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, ״וְעָשָׂה מֵאַחַת מֵהֵנָּה״ – פְּעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיב אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּן, פְּעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yosei says** with regard to the verse: “If any one shall sin through error, in any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, **and performs from one of them”** (Leviticus 4:2), that there are **times when** one is **liable** to bring **one** sin-offering **for all** of his transgressions together, **and** there are **times when** one is **liable** to bring a sin-offering **for each and every** transgression.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:13
[Sanhedrin 62a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:13)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? דִּכְתִיב ״וְעָשָׂה מֵאַחַת מֵהֵנָּה״. ״אַחַת״, ״מֵאַחַת״. ״הֵנָּה״, ״מֵהֵנָּה״. אַחַת שֶׁהִיא הֵנָּה, וְהֵנָּה שֶׁהִיא אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yonatan says: What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei? As it is written: “And performs from one of them,”** and Rabbi Yosei interprets the verse as follows: The word **“one”** is qualified, as the verse states: **“From one.”** Likewise, the word **“them”** is qualified, as the verse states: **“Of them.”** Rabbi Yosei derives that there are cases of **one** transgression **that,** with regard to punishment, **is them,** i.e., many. **And** there are cases of **them,** i.e., several transgressions, **that,** with regard to punishment, **are one.**


###### Sanhedrin 62a:14
[Sanhedrin 62a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:14)

״אַחַת״ – ״שִׁמְעוֹן״, ״מֵאַחַת״ – ״שֵׁם״ מִ״שִּׁמְעוֹן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yonatan delineates the implementation of this principle with regard to the *halakhot* of Shabbat: **“One”** complete violation is, e.g., a case where one wrote a whole word as he intended, such as the name **Shimon.** The term **“from one”** is referring to a case where one performed only part of a complete act of labor, e.g., he wrote only some of the letters of a word, such as ***shin mem*, from** the name **Shimon.** These two letters spell the word *shem*. In such a case, one is obligated to bring an offering for his transgression of writing two letters, *shin* and *mem*, even though he did not complete his intended act of writing the entire name of Shimon.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:15
[Sanhedrin 62a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:15)

״הֵנָּה״ – אָבוֹת, ״מֵהֵנָּה״ – תּוֹלָדוֹת. ״אַחַת״ שֶׁהִיא ״הֵנָּה״: זְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת. ״הֵנָּה״ שֶׁהִיא ״אַחַת״: שִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת וּזְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yonatan continues: **“Them”** is referring to the **primary categories** of labor. The term **“of them”** includes the **subcategories** of labor. The cases of **one** transgression **that** with regard to punishment **is them,** i.e., it is counted as many transgressions, are those involving **intention,** i.e., awareness, on the part of the transgressor that it was **Shabbat and unawareness** on the part of the transgressor that the **acts of labor** that he was performing are prohibited on Shabbat. One who transgresses in this way is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each and every category of labor that he engages in. The cases of **them,** several transgressions, **that** with regard to punishment **are one** are those involving **unawareness** on the part of the transgressor that it was **Shabbat and intention,** i.e., awareness, that the **acts of labor** that he was performing are prohibited on Shabbat. One who transgresses in this way is obligated to bring only one sin-offering.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:16
[Sanhedrin 62a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:16)

אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלָא נָפְקָא לֵיהּ חִילּוּק מְלָאכוֹת מִדּוּכְתָּא אַחֲרִיתִי, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef concludes his objection to Rabbi Abba’s comparison between the status of the prohibition against kindling a fire on Shabbat and the status of the prohibition against bowing to an idol: The fact that Rabbi Yosei derives that kindling a fire on Shabbat is not punishable by death can be attributed to the fact that he derives from a different verse that one who violates several categories of labor is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each and every category of labor that he engages in. **But here,** with regard to idol worship, **where he does not derive the division of labors,** i.e., the division of categories of idol worship, **from another place,** perhaps **everyone** agrees **that bowing was singled out to divide** the prohibition of idol worship into different categories and bowing to an idol is punishable by death just like other forms of worship.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:17
[Sanhedrin 62a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:17)

חִילּוּק מְלָאכוֹת דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָמֵי תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מֵ״אַחַת מֵהֵנָּה״? ״אַחַת״ – זְבִיחָה, ״מֵאַחַת״ – סִימָן אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks according to both opinions, that of Rav Abba and that of Rav Yosef: Why not **derive the division of labors with regard to idol worship, too, from** the same verse from which Rabbi Yosei derives the division of labors with regard to Shabbat, namely: “From **one of them”?** Since this verse is not referring to the *halakhot* of Shabbat in particular, it can be interpreted with regard to idol worship in the same manner that it is interpreted with regard to Shabbat: The word **“one”** is referring to one complete, prohibited act of worship, such as **sacrificing** an animal as an idolatrous offering. The term **“from one”** is referring to one who performs part of an act of worship, e.g., one who did not finish slaughtering the offering, as he severed only **one of the organs,** i.e., the windpipe and gullet, that must be severed in ritual slaughter.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:18
[Sanhedrin 62a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:18)

״הֵנָּה״ – אָבוֹת: זִיבּוּחַ, קִיטּוּר, נִיסּוּךְ, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה. ״מֵהֵנָּה״ – תּוֹלָדוֹת: שָׁבַר מַקֵּל לְפָנֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The word **“them”** is referring to the **primary categories** of idol worship that are derived from the manner in which God is worshipped in the Temple, namely, **sacrificing** an animal as an offering, **burning** incense, **pouring** a libation, **and bowing.** The term **“of them”** is referring to the **subcategories** of idol worship, e.g., one who **broke a stick before** an idol that is worshipped in such a manner. Breaking a stick is a subcategory of sacrificing, as an animal’s neck is broken when it is slaughtered.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:19
[Sanhedrin 62a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:19)

״אַחַת״ שֶׁהִיא ״הֵנָּה״: זְדוֹן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְשִׁגְגַת עֲבוֹדוֹת. ״הֵנָּה״ שֶׁהִיא ״אַחַת״: שִׁגְגַת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּזְדוֹן עֲבוֹדוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The principle of **one** transgression **that** with regard to punishment **is them,** i.e., many, can be applied to a case of **intention,** i.e., awareness, on the part of the transgressor that **idol worship** is prohibited, **and unawareness** that the particular **rites** of worship that he was performing are prohibited. The principle of **them,** several transgressions, **that** with regard to punishment **are one** can be applied to a case of **unawareness** with regard to the prohibition of **idol worship,** i.e., the transgressor was unaware that idol worship is prohibited or that he was worshipping an idol, **and intention,** i.e., awareness, that the **rites** that he was performing are prohibited.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:20
[Sanhedrin 62a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:20)

הַאי שִׁגְגַת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי קָסָבַר בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת הוּא וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לוֹ, הֲרֵי לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds to the suggestion that the division of categories of idol worship can be derived from this verse: **What are the circumstances** of **unawareness** with regard to **idol worship? If** the transgressor **thought** that a certain building was **a synagogue and bowed to it,** and he then realized that it is a house of idol worship, he is certainly exempt, as **his heart** was directed **toward Heaven.**


###### Sanhedrin 62a:21
[Sanhedrin 62a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:21)

אֶלָּא דַּחֲזָא אִנְדְּרָטָא וּסְגֵיד לֵיהּ. אִי קַבְּלֵיהּ עֲלֵיהּ – מֵזִיד הוּא, אִי לָא קַבְּלֵיהּ עֲלֵיהּ – לָא כְּלוּם הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be a case **where** the transgressor **saw a statue [*andarta*]** of a person **and bowed to it.** This case must also be clarified: **If he accepted** that person **upon himself** as a god, **he is an intentional** transgressor and is liable to receive the death penalty, not to bring an offering. **If he did not accept him upon himself** as a god, but rather bowed to the statue in order to honor the person, what he did **is nothing.**


###### Sanhedrin 62a:22
[Sanhedrin 62a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:22)

אֶלָּא מֵאַהֲבָה וּמִיִּרְאָה. הָנִיחָא לְאַבַּיֵּי, דְּאָמַר חַיָּיב; אֶלָּא לְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר פָּטוּר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is clearly a case where one worshipped an idol **due to love or due to fear** of someone, and he was unaware that this is prohibited. **This works out well according to Abaye, who says** that one who engages in idol worship due to love or fear is **liable;** accordingly, one who does so unwittingly must bring an offering. **But according to Rava, who says** that one who does so is **exempt, what can be said?**


###### Sanhedrin 62a:23
[Sanhedrin 62a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:23)

אֶלָּא בְּאוֹמֵר ״מוּתָּר״. תִּפְשׁוֹט דִּבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: הֶעְלֵם זֶה וָזֶה בְּיָדוֹ, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** according to Rava, unawareness with regard to idol worship can be explained as referring to a case **where** the transgressor **says** to himself that idol worship is **permitted** in general. If so, one can **resolve the dilemma that Rava raised before Rav Naḥman: What is** the *halakha* if one who violated Shabbat **has a lapse of awareness of** both **this,** i.e., that it was Shabbat, **and that,** i.e., that the particular labor that he performed is prohibited on Shabbat?


###### Sanhedrin 62a:24
[Sanhedrin 62a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:24)

תִּיפְשׁוֹט, דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, וְתִפְשׁוֹט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava’s dilemma had been left unresolved. If the phrase “and performs from one of them” is interpreted as referring to a case where one engages in idol worship thinking that it is permitted to do so, one can **resolve that** the transgressor **is obligated** to bring **only one** sin-offering for all of his acts of idol worship, according to this interpretation of the verse. The fact that Rava’s dilemma had been left unresolved therefore serves as a challenge to this interpretation. The Gemara refutes this challenge: **This** is **not difficult;** indeed, **resolve** the dilemma from here.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:25
[Sanhedrin 62a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:25)

וּמִי מָצֵית מוֹקְמַתְּ לְהָנֵי קְרָאֵי בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה? דְּאִילּוּ הָכָא, כְּתִיב: בְּמָשִׁיחַ – פַּר, וּבְנָשִׂיא – שָׂעִיר, וּבְיָחִיד – כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But can you interpret these verses,** namely, “and performs from one of them,” **with regard to idol worship** at all? **As here,** in Leviticus, chapter 4, where this verse is written, **it is written with regard to an anointed priest,** i.e., the High Priest, stating that if he sinned unwittingly he brings **a bull** as a sin-offering, **and with regard to a king** who sinned unwittingly it is stated that he brings **a goat** as a sin-offering, **and with regard to** an ordinary **individual** it is stated that he brings **a female lamb or a female goat.**


###### Sanhedrin 62a:26
[Sanhedrin 62a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:26)

וְאִילּוּ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה תְּנַן: וְשָׁוִין שֶׁבִּשְׂעִירָה כְּיָחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Whereas with regard to idol worship we learned** in a *baraita* (61b): **And they agree that** a High Priest who unwittingly engages in idol worship brings **a female goat** as a sin-offering, **as** does an ordinary **individual.** Clearly, then, the *halakhot* of unwitting idol worship are derived from a different source, i.e., Numbers, chapter 15.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:27
[Sanhedrin 62a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:27)

וְתוּ לָא מִידֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **And** there is **nothing more** to be discussed. The suggestion to derive a division of categories with regard to idol worship from the phrase in the verse “and performs from one of them” is groundless, and Rav Yosef’s objection to Rabbi Abba’s opinion is justified.


###### Sanhedrin 62a:28
[Sanhedrin 62a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62a:28)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה, אָמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he **said:**