משנה: הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֶחָד הָעוֹבֵד וְאֶחָד הַזּוֹבֵחַ וְאֶחָד הַמְקַטֵּר וְאֶחָד הַמְנַסֵּךְ וְאֶחָד הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְהַמְקַבְּלוֹ עָלָיו לֶאֱלוֹהַּ וְהָאוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵלִי אַתָּה. אֲבָל הַמְגַפֵּף וְהַמְנַשֵּׁק וְהַמְכַבֵּד וְהַמַּרְבִּיץ הַמַּרְחִיץ הַסָּךְ הַמַּלְבִּישׁ וְהַמַּנְעִיל עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הַנּוֹדֵר בִּשְׁמוֹ וְהַמְקַיֵּם בִּשְׁמוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הַפּוֹעֵר עַצְמוֹ לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר זוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָתוֹ. הַזּוֹרֵק אֶבֶן לְמַרְקוּלִיס זוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָתוֹ׃ MISHNAH: The worshipper of strange worship237Who is mentioned in Sanhedrin 7:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.5.1">Mishnah 5 as subject to stoning. whether he worships238In a way customary for the worship of the idol even if it does not resemble any approved worship of Heaven., or sacrifices239Any of the acts required in the Temple proffered to an idol is a capital crime even if ordinarily this is not the worship of this idol., or burns incense, or makes a libation, or prostrates himself; also one who accepts it as a god and says to it: you are my god240Without any other action..
But one who embraces241A statue., or kisses, or sweeps clean242The floor on which the statue stands., or sprinkles water243To settle the dust on the dirt floor on which the statue is standing.; one who washes, rubs with oil, clothes, or puts shoes on it, violates a prohibition244The penalty would be flogging, not stoning.. He who makes a vow in its name or keeps one in its name violates a prohibition. One who defecates in front of Baal Pe`or follows its worship245While in later biblical texts (Isaiah.5.14">Is. 5:14, Job.6.10">Job 6:10) פער فعر means “to open one’s mouth wide”, in rabbinic Hebrew it always means “to defecate”. Therefore Ba`al Pe`or is interpreted as a deity worshipped by defecating in front of it. The defecation then becomes a capital crime.. One who throws a stone at a statue of Mercury follows its worship246While in general throwing a stone at an idol would be a commendable sign of disrespect, throwing a stone at a Hermes stele is a capital crime..
הלכה: הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כול׳. אַזְהָרָה לָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מְנַיִין. לֹא תָֽעָבְדֵ֑ם. כָּרֵת מְנַיִין. אֶתִ־יְי ה֣וּא מְגַדֵּ֑ף וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה. וְלֹא מְגַדְּף כָּתוּב. כְּאָדָם שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לַחֲבֶירוֹ. גִּידַּפְתָּה אֶת כָּל־הַקְּעָרָה וְלֹא שִׁייַרְתָּה בָהּ כְּלוּם. מָשָׁל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָֽעְזָר אוֹמֵר. לִשְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין וּקְעָרָה שֶׁלְגְּרִיסִין בֵּינֵיהוֹן. פָּשַׁט אֶחָד אַת יָדָו וְגִידֵּף אֶת כָּל־הַקְּעָרָה וְלֹא שִׁייֵר בָהּ כְּלוּם. כָּךְ הַמְגַדֵּף וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֵינוֹ מְשַׁייֵר לְאַחֲרָיו מִצְוָה. עוֹנֶשׁ מְנַיִין. וְהֽוֹצֵאתָ֣ הָאִישׁ הַה֡וּא אוֹ֩ אֶת־הָֽאִשָּׁ֨ה הַהִיא אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָ֠שׂ֠וּ אֶת־הַדָּבָ֨ר הַזֶּה֙ אֶל־שְׁעָרֶ֔יךָ וגו׳ עַד וּסְקַלְתֶּם אוֹתָם בָּֽאֲבָנִ֖ים וָמֵֽתוּ׃ HALAKHAH: “The worshipper of strange worship,” etc. From where warning about strange worship? Do not worship them247Exodus.20.5">Ex. 20:5, Deuteronomy.5.9">Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment.. Extirpation from where? He blasphemed the Eternal and will be extirpated248Numbers.15.30">Num. 15:30. The verse describes any person who sins intentionally as a blasphemer. The verse decrees extirpation as punishment for any willful deed for which a sacrifice would be required if done inadvertently, in case it cannot be prosecuted in court for lack of witnesses.
The traditional interpretation of the purification sacrifices prescribed in Numbers.15.22-29">Num. 15:22–29, which differ from those prescribed under similar headings in Leviticus.4.1-5.14">Lev. 4:1–5:14, assigns the sacrifices prescribed in Num. exclusively to sins of idolatry; those of Lev. to the atonement of all other transgressions (Sifry Num. 111–112). Therefore, the following verse 15:30 can also be interpreted as specifically referring to idolatry.. But is there not written “blasphemed”? As one would say to another, you scraped out the entire pot249It seems that in Galilean dialect גדּף جدف “to blaspheme” was pronounced like גדף جذف “to fly quickly” and this in turn sounded like גרף جرف “to scoop out with a shovel, to scratch out completely.” The parallel in the Keritot.7b">Babli, Keritut 7b, formulates גִּירַפְתָּ הַקְּעָרָה “you scratched out the pot” and Rashi comments: ד can be replaced by ר. and did not leave anything; a parable which Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar formulated: Two people were sitting with a pot of porridge between them. One of them stretched out his hand, scraped out the entire pot, and did not leave anything in it. So both the blasphemer and the worshipper of strange worship do not leave any commandment as residue250Obeying a Divine command after blaspheming or worshipping a strange deity is an empty gesture, devoid of all value.. From where the punishment? You shall lead out that man, or that woman, who did this deed to your gates, etc., up to and stone them with stones until they die251Deuteronomy.17.5">Deut. 17:5..
לֹא תָֽעָבְדֵ֑ם. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁיַּעֲבוֹד כָּל־עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹֽא־תִשְׁתַּֽחֲוֶ֥ה לָהֶם֭. הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה בִּכְלָל הָֽיְתָה וְלָמָּה יָצָאת. לְהַקִּישׁ אֵלֶיהָ. אֶלָּא מַה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה מְיוּחֶדֶת מַעֲשֶׂה יָחִיד וְחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ בִפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. אַף אֲנִי אַרְבֶּה כָּל־מַעֲשֶׂה וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ חַייָבִין עָלָיו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. זִיבֵּחַ וְקִיטֵּר וְנִיסַּךְ בְּהֶעֱלֶם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. מוֹדֶה שֶׁאִם עָֽבְדָהּ בַּעֲבוֹדָתָהּ בַּעֲבוֹדַת הָגָּבוֹהַּ בַּעֲבוֹדַת הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה שֶׁהוּא חַייָב עַל כַּל־אַחַת וְאַחַת. כְּדָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא. וְלֹֽא־יִזְבְּח֥וּ עוֹד֙ אֶת־זִבְחֵיהֶ֔ם לַשְּׂעִירִים. אָֽמְרוּ לֵיהּ. מַטִּי תָּנָהּ לַקָּדָשִׁים. Do not worship them247Exodus.20.5">Ex. 20:5, Deuteronomy.5.9">Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment.. Should I say, not unless he worshipped every single strange worship in the world? The verse says, do not prostrate yourself before them247Exodus.20.5">Ex. 20:5, Deuteronomy.5.9">Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment.. 252The argument is hinted at in the Sanhedrin.60b">Babli, 60b. Prostration was included253Even though in the verse prostrating is mentioned before worshipping, it clearly is an act of worship and on purely logical grounds would not have to be mentioned separately.; why is it mentioned separately? To tie to it: Prostration is special in that it is the act of a single person and is punishable separately, so I am adding any single act that one is liable for separately. Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said254Sanhedrin 7:10:2-11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.10.2-11">Halakhah 13, 25c l. 18, the entire argument is attributed to R. Jehudah ben Tanhum., if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting255If he was oblivious to the fact that worshipping other gods was forbidden, he only has to bring one purification sacrifice. he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical with the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action256Applying any forms of worship of Heaven to any other purpose is sinful. Therefore, using it for pagan worship is not the same as accepting pagan rites of other forms.. As Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: They should not continue to offer their sacrifices to spirits.257Leviticus.17.7">Lev. 17:7. They said to him, turn and refer it to sacrifices258The paragraph forbids any sacrificial act outside the holy precinct. It is not applicable to the question at hand..
רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זִיבֵּחַ לָהּ טָלֶה בַעַל מוּם חַייָב. מַאי כְדוֹן. כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. לֹא־תַֽעֲשׂ֣וּן כֵּ֔ן לַֽיי אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם׃ כָּל־לַיי אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶם לֹא־תַֽעֲשׂוּן כֵּן. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he sacrificed a defective lamb to it, he is guilty259It is forbidden to sacrifice defective animals to God (Leviticus.22.20">Lev. 22:20). Nevertheless, if regular pagan worship does not include animal sacrifices but a Jew chooses to sacrifice a defective animal to that idol, he is guilty of idolatry. The Babli, Avodah zarah51a, quotes R. Abbahu in the name of R. Johanan in the opposite sense.. From where this? As Rebbi Hila said, do not do such to the Eternal, your God260Deuteronomy.12.4">Deut. 12:4. The paragraph deals with the destruction of places of pagan worship. It is interpreted to mean that anything similar to Temple worship, even if executed in an unacceptable way, is forbidden as pagan worship. Sifry Deut. 81 follows the Yerushalmi: “Anything which cannot be sacrificed in the Temple but somebody sacrificed it as foreign worship, if its kind might be sacrificed to God he is guilty; otherwise he cannot be prosecuted.”. Anything that you might do for the Eternal, your God, you may not do in this case.
רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָה. לֹא תָֽעָבְדֵ֑ם כְּלָל. לֹֽא־תִשְׁתַּֽחֲוֶ֥ה לֶהֶ֖ם פְּרָט. כִּ֛י לֹ֥א תִֽשְׁתַּֽחֲוֶה֭ לְאֵ֣ל אַחֵ֑ר חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כָּהֲנָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי הִילָא. לֹא־תַֽעֲשׂ֣וּן כֵּ֔ן כְּלָל. זוֹבֵחַ לָאֱֽלֹהִ֖ים יָחֳֽרָ֑ם פְּרָט. בִּלְתִּ֥י לַֽיי לְבַדּֽוֹ. חָזַר וָכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל וְהַכֹּל בִּכְלָל. וְרִיבָה אֶת הַמְגַפֵּף וְהַמְנַשֵּׁק. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֶמְרָה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. לֹא לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה. הַמְגַפֵּף וְהַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה שֶׁאֵינָן מַעֲשֶׂה. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Do not worship them247Exodus.20.5">Ex. 20:5, Deuteronomy.5.9">Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a principle. Do not prostrate yourself before them247Exodus.20.5">Ex. 20:5, Deuteronomy.5.9">Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a detail. For you shall not prostrate yourself before another god261Exodus.34.14">Ex. 34:14.; He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle: is nothing covered but the detail262Since in the Ten Commandments prostrating is mentioned before worshipping, the order really should be detail, principle, principle. Also, in our text of the Introduction to Sifra, “principle, detail, principle has to be judged in light of the detail,” adding anything similar to detail. The passage supports the thesis of Menahem Cahana [קוים לתולדות התפתחותה ספר זיכרון ,של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים לתרצה ליפשיץ, Jerusalem 2005, pp. 173–216] that only the list of hermeneutical rules is original but the detailed interpretation of the rules is Babylonian (following R. Aqiba), never accepted in the Yerushalmi. The latter does not differentiate between כְּלָל וּפְרָט,פְּרָט וּכְלָל,כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, and in all cases reduces the validity of the principle to the case of the detail. The question naturally deserves no answer since it is not כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל but פְּרָט וּכְלָל וּכְלָל, which is not the subject of any hermeneutical rule.? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: Do not do such260Deuteronomy.12.4">Deut. 12:4. The paragraph deals with the destruction of places of pagan worship. It is interpreted to mean that anything similar to Temple worship, even if executed in an unacceptable way, is forbidden as pagan worship. Sifry Deut. 81 follows the Yerushalmi: “Anything which cannot be sacrificed in the Temple but somebody sacrificed it as foreign worship, if its kind might be sacrificed to God he is guilty; otherwise he cannot be prosecuted.”, a principle. One who sacrifices to gods shall be banned263Exodus.22.19">Ex. 22:19., a detail. Only for the Eternal alone263Exodus.22.19">Ex. 22:19., He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle; is not everything included264This statement is not found elsewhere in talmudic texts. But in R. Aqiba’s system of additions (רֵבּוּי) and subtractions (מְעוּט), addition + subtraction + addition implies that almost everything corresponding to the broad description of the additions is included (Tosephta Ševu`ot 1:7, Nazir.35b">Babli Nazir35b).? Does it not add one who embraces and one who kisses268Exodus.32.8">Ex. 32:8, speaking of the Golden Calf.? He told him, why is prostrating mentioned? Not to infer from it that it is an action? He who embraces and he who (prostrates himself)266It is clear that one has to read ומנשק “and kisses” instead of ומשתחוה “and prostrates himself”. Embracing and kissing are not acts of worship. do not exemplify actions.
מְנַיִין לָאוֹמֵר לוֹ. אֵלִי אַתָּה. רַב אָבוּן בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. וַיִּשְׁתַּֽחֲווּ־לוֹ֙ וַיִּזְבְּחוּ־ל֔וֹ וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ אֵ֤לֶּה אֱלֹהֶ֨יךָ֙ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וגו׳. מֵעַתָּה אֵינוֹ מִתְחַייֵב עַד שֶׁיִּזְבַּח וִיקַטֵּר וָיֹאמַר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא בָא הַכָּתוּב לְהַזְכִּיר אֶלָּא גְּנָייָן שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וַיִּשְׁתַּֽחֲווּ־לוֹ֙ לֹא לַגָּבוֹהַּ. וַיִּזְבְּחוּ־ל֔וֹ לֹא לַגָּבוֹהַּ. וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ לוֹ. לֹא לַגָּבוֹהַּ. מַאי כְדוֹן. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן אֲמִירָה וְנֶאֶמְרָה אֲמִירָה בַּמֵּסִית. מָה אֲמִירָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַמֵּסִית עָשָׂה בָהּ אֲמִירָה כְמַעֲשֶׂה. אַף אֲמִירָה הָאֲמוּרָה כָאן נַעֲשֶׂה בָהּ אֲמִירָה כְמַעֲשֶׂה. From where about him who says, “you are my god”267That it is a capital crime.? Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there268Exodus.32.8">Ex. 32:8, speaking of the Golden Calf.: They prostrated themselves before it, and sacrificed to it, and said, these are your gods, Israel. Then he should not be guilty unless he sacrifice, burn incense, and declare. Rebbi Yose said, the verse is written only for the disgrace of Israel. They prostrated themselves before it, not before Heaven. And sacrificed to it, not to Heaven. And said, not to Heaven. What about this269How does the verse imply that declaring one’s allegiance to another power constitutes a capital crime?? Saying is mentioned here and saying is said about one who leads astray61,The missionary for another faith who addresses individuals in private; Deuteronomy.13.11">Deut. 13:11, cf. Mishnah 16.270An example of הֶקֵּשׁ “trapping”, or בִּנְיַן אָב מִכָּתוּב אֶחָד, the third hermeneutical rule. Since in one case it is established that by talking alone one may commit a capital crime, in all other cases where talking is equated to actions constituting capital crimes, it is a capital crime in itself.. Since for saying mentioned about one who leads astray, saying is equated with acting, also for the saying mentioned here, we have to equate saying with acting.
כָּתוּב וַיֵּ֗לֶךְ וַֽיַּֽעֲבֹד֙ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֔ים וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לָהֶ֑ם וְלַשֶּׁ֣מֶשׁ ׀ א֣וֹ לַיָּרֵ֗חַ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. לַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אֵין כָּתוּב כָּאן אֶלָּא וְלַשֶּׁ֣מֶשׁ. אֵין כָּאן כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֶלָּא רִיבּוּיִים. הָתִיב רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זְמִינָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. וְהָא כָתוּב כֹּ֣ל אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ֩ סְנַפִּ֨יר וְקַשְׂקֶ֜שֶׂת וְכֹל֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אֵין־ל֜וֹ סְנַפִּ֣יר וְקַשְׂקֶ֗שֶׂת. מֵעַתָּה אֵין כָּאן כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֶלָּא רִיבּוּיִים. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּכָתַב וָי״ו. אָמַר רַב יוֹחָנָן בַּר מַרְייָא. כָּל־הֵן דַּאֲנָא מַשְׁכַּח וָי״ו אֲנָא מְחִיק לֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבוּדֵּמָא. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. מַה שֶׁבַּיָּמִים יְהוּ אֲסוּרִין וּמַה שֶׁבַּגִּיגִּיּוֹת וְשֶׁבַּבֵיבָרִים יְהוּ מוּתָּרִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכָל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמָּ֑יִם. רִיבָה. It is written271Deuteronomy.17.3">Deut. 17:3. If not for R. Zeˋira’s interpretation, one would translate or to the sun, or to the moon.: He went and worshipped other powers and prostrated himself before them, and to the sun, and to the moon. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is not said to the sun but and to the sun. That is not principle and detail but addition272By the rule כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט “principle, detail, and principle: nothing is covered but the detail,” the verse seems to imply that only worship of sun or moon are capital crimes, not the worship of other gods (cf. Sanhedrin 7:8:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.8.2">Note 213). Since the detail is not standing alone but is connected to the general category by and, even R. Ismael will agree that the verse adds the worship of celestial bodies as bodies, rather than deities, to the definition of pagan worship.. Rebbi Abba bar Zemina objected before Rebbi Ze`ura; is it not written any which have fins and scales, and any which do not have fins and scales273Leviticus.11.9">Lev. 11:9: This you may eat from anything which is in the water: Any with fin and scale in the water, in seas and rivers, those you may eat. On the face of it, the verse declares a principle of what may be eaten from the water, followed by a detail, from lakes (standing water) and rivers (flowing water).? Then this is not principle and detail but additions since there is written and274As explained later, the preceding argument would allow to eat seafood grown in barrels and aquariums, against the received rules, unless one accepts every and, even those needed by the rules of grammar, as additions. This may be R. Aqiba’s approach; it certainly is unacceptable for R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rules. Chullin.66b">Babli Ḥulin66b.? Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, anywhere I am encountering and, I am deleting it275This is essentially R. Ismael’s approach that “the Torah speaks human speech;” no word needed by the basic rules of grammar and syntax carries a hidden meaning.. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, I would have said that anything in the oceans is forbidden, what is in barrels and vivaria276Latin vivarium “game, fish preserve”. should be permitted. The verse says, and anything which lives in water, an addition277Because of the introductory clause, the verse must be read as principle, principle, and detail; this does not fit the scheme of “principle and detail” but the wordiness must be interpreted as intended to cover all possible cases.
The verse as quoted does not exist; in Leviticus.11.9-10">Lev. 11:9–10, Deuteronomy.14.9">Deut. 14:9 one reads מִכֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמָּ֑יִם, the partitive mem indicating that not everything living in the water can be eaten, but not referring to the varieties of water..
רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. הָאוֹמֵר לוֹ. אֵלִי אַתָּה. מַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי וַחֲכָמִים. הִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהּ מָהוּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בִּכְפִיפַת קוֹמָה שֶׁהוּא חַייָב. מַה בֵין הַמַּעֲלֶה וְהַמּוֹרִיד קוֹמָתוֹ מַה בֵין הַמַּעֲלֶה וְהַמּוֹרִיד שִׂפְתוֹתָיו. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כַּמַּחֲלוֹקֶת. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כַּמַּחֲלוֹקֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. קִרְייָא מְסַייֵעַ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. תּוֹרָ֤ה אַחַת֙ יִהְיֶה֣ לָכֶ֔ם לָֽעוֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁגָגָֽה׃ אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דָבָר שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה. הַמְגַדֵּף וְהַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה שֶׁאֵינָן מַעֲשֶׂה מְנַיִין. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If one says to it, you are my god, there is disagreement between Rebbi278This disagreement is not mentioned in any other source. It is possible that a name should be inserted here. and the Sages. If he (prostrated himself)266It is clear that one has to read ומנשק “and kisses” instead of ומשתחוה “and prostrates himself”. Embracing and kissing are not acts of worship., what is the rule? Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that if he lowered his body279This is prostrating which by the verse was defined as an idolatrous act., he is guilty. What is the difference between raising and lowering his body, and raising and lowering his lips280This is declaring the idol as one’s god, which also can be done by only moving body parts, the lips. In the Sanhedrin.65b">Babli, 65b, R. Johanan extends his argument by criminalizing a person who prevents his ox from eating while threshing by shouting at it.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, following disagreement281The nature of this disagreement cannot be determined. It is possible that R. Joḥanan by his argument implies that embracing and kissing idols are capital crimes.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the distinction282The distinction made in the Mishnah between idolatrous acts which are capital crimes and those which are simple transgressions.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One rule should be for you, for the one acting in error283Numbers.15.29">Num. 15:29; the reference to idolatrous acts is explained in Sanhedrin 7:9:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.9.2">Note 248.. This only refers to what represents an action. The one who embraces (and who prostrates himself)266It is clear that one has to read ומנשק “and kisses” instead of ומשתחוה “and prostrates himself”. Embracing and kissing are not acts of worship., which are not action, from where284Therefore, embracing and kissing cannot be capital crimes since they do not fit the criterion for a purification sacrifice in case the act was unintentional.?