![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
daf bit: Sanhedrin 62
The mishna says: he who engages in idol-worship is executed, if he served
it, sacrificed to it, offered incense, made libations, prostrated himself,
accepted it as a god, or said to it "you are my god". The g'mara raises
the question of inadvertent transgression and discusses Shabbat. If
one violates Shabbat but is unaware that it is Shabbat, or is unaware
that his action is a violation, then he is not liable to death (though
he still has to bring a sin-offering). So what about idolatry? The
g'mara asks if it is even possible to commit idolatry inadvertently,
arguing that if you thought you were in a synagogue worshipping God
when you actually weren't you have no intent. According to the rabbis
here, idolatry requires intent and does not occur at all without that
intent, while a Shabbat violation occurs even if you didn't mean it.
(60b mishna, 62b g'mara)
So the text here is saying that you can accidentally transgress Shabbat, in which case there is a lesser penalty than if you did it knowingly, but accidental idolatry is not possible -- either you did it and are liable to death or you didn't intend to and have no liability at all. It seems unlikely to me that this is the final word on the subject, given all the precautions we take to avoid accidental participation in practices that would be considered avodah zara (alien worship). Or is avodah zara in a different category than this?
no subject
no subject
Our Rabbis taught: Sabta, a townsman of Avlas, once hired an ass to a gentile woman. When she came to Peor, she said to him, Wait till I enter and come out again. On her issuing, he said to her, Now do you wait for me too until I go in and come out again. But, said she, are you not a Jew? He replied, What does it concern thee? He then entered, uncovered himself before it, and wiped himself on the idol's nose, whilst the acolytes praised him, saying, No man has ever served this idol thus.
He that uncovers himself before Baal Peor thereby serves it, even if his intention was to degrade it. He who casts a stone at Merculis thereby serves it, even if his intention was to bruise it.
R. Manasseh was going to Be Toratha. On the way he was told, An idol stands here. He took up a stone and threw it at the idol's statue. Thereupon they said to him: It is Merculis. He said to them, But we have learned, HE WHO CASTS A STONE FOR MERCULIS THEREBY SERVES IT. So he went and inquired at the Beth Hamidrash [whether he had done wrong, since his action was a gesture of contempt]. They informed him, We have learned, HE WHO CASTS A STONE AT MERCULIS [thereby serves it] that is to say even if it is merely to bruise it. He said to them, Then I will go and remove it. But they replied, Whether one casts a stone or removes it, he incurs guilt, because every stone thus removed leaves room for another.
no subject
The complete text of the mishna (as translated by Soncino) is:
MISHNAH. HE WHO ENGAGES IN IDOL-WORSHIP [IS EXECUTED]. IT IS ALL ONE WHETHER HE SERVE IT, SACRIFICE, OFFER INCENSE, MAKE LIBATIONS, PROSTRATE HIMSELF, ACCEPT IT AS A GOD, OR SAY TO IT, ‘THOU ART MY GOD.’ BUT HE WHO EMBRACES, KISSES IT, SWEEPS OR SPRINKLES THE GROUND BEFORE IT, WASHES IT, ANOINTS IT, CLOTHES IT, OR PUTS ON ITS SHOES, HE TRANSGRESSES A NEGATIVE PRECEPT [BUT IS NOT EXECUTED]. HE WHO VOWS OR SWEARS [LIT. CONFIRMS A THING] BY ITS NAME, VIOLATES A NEGATIVE PRECEPT. HE WHO UNCOVERS HIMSELF BEFORE BAAL-PEOR [IS GUILTY, FOR] THIS IS THE MODE OF WORSHIPPING HIM. HE WHO CASTS A STONE ON MERCULIS THEREBY WORSHIPS IT.
The mishna calls out Baal-Peor and Merculis. This implies to me that treating other idols in that way wouldn't necessarily have the same results.
(Baal-Peor has some wacky practices, it appears.)
(OT: did you get my reply to your email?)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject