Datasets:

sruly
/

Safaria_Text_Links

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 516k rows

Citation 1 stringlengths 9 126	Citation 2 stringlengths 7 158	Conection Type stringclasses 19 values	Text 1 stringlengths 5 123	Text 2 stringlengths 3 155	Category 1 stringclasses 12 values	Category 2 stringclasses 15 values	Content 1 stringlengths 1 87.3k ⌀	Content 2 stringlengths 1 141k ⌀
Rashi on Sanhedrin 60b:8:2	Sanhedrin 60b:8	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	ת"ל לאלהים יחרם - דבא הכתוב לעונשו מיתה דהאי יחרם לשון מיתה דכתיב (ויקרא כ"ז:כ"ט) כל חרם אשר יחרם מן האדם לא יפדה מות יומת זובח לאלהים כל אלהים במשמע ואפילו שלא כדרכה מדלא כתביה בלשון עבודה עובד לאלהים בזביחה יחרם שמע מינה אפילו אינה עבודה שלו קאמר וכל עבודות שבעולם לכדרכה נפקא לן בהו מיתה מוילך ויעבוד וגו' דמשמע דבר שהוא עבודה לו:	The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: "One who sacrifices to the gods shall be utterly destroyed, except to the Lord alone" (Exodus 22:19): If it were stated: One who sacrifices shall be utterly destroyed, I would have said that the verse speaks of one who slaughters a sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard, referring to a severe transgression that is stated elsewhere in the Torah. Therefore, the verse states: "To the gods," indicating that the verse speaks of one who slaughters an offering to an idol.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 60b:9:1	Sanhedrin 60b:9	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	בלתי לה' לבדו - ריקן ונטל כל העבודות מלעבדה בהן ונתנן לשם המיוחד משמע דאכל עבודות הראויות לשם קאמר:	The baraita asks: From here I know only the halakha of one who slaughters an offering to an idol. From where is it derived that one who burns incense or pours a libation is also liable to receive the death penalty? The baraita answers that the verse states: "Except to the Lord alone"; the verse emptied out, i.e., designated, all the sacrificial rites to the ineffable name of God, indicating that one who performs any of these rites in idol worship is liable.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:11:1	Sanhedrin 61a:11	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	לזובח להכעיס - ואינו מתכוין לקבלו עליו באלוה ואשמועינן קרא דעובר בלאו:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:12:1	Sanhedrin 61a:12	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	ארכסו ליה תורי - והלך לבקשן:	§ 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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:12:2	Sanhedrin 61a:12	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	האומר אעבוד - משעה שהסיתוהו ונתרצה חייב מיתה דנפקא לן לקמן מלא תאבה ולא תשמע הא אבה ושמע חייב מיד:	§ 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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:12:3	Sanhedrin 61a:12	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	אלך ואעבוד - שמחוסר הליכה אע"ג דאיכא למימר אדהכי הדר ביה:	§ 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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:12:4	Sanhedrin 61a:12	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	נלך ונעבוד - אע"פ שכלל עצמו עם אחרים דאיכא למימר הני אחרים לא אזלי ואיהו נמי לא ליזיל:	§ 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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:13:1	Sanhedrin 61a:13	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	א"ל - מתני' דקתני עובד אין אומר לא:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:13:2	Sanhedrin 61a:13	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	באומר איני מקבלו עלי - באלוה:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:13:3	Sanhedrin 61a:13	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	אלא בעבודה - עד שאעבדנו דכל כמה דלא פלח ליה אין כאן אבה ושמע וסיפא דמשמע באמירה חייב בשקבלו עליו אלהותו מיד דכיון דאמר אעבוד מסתמא קבליה עליה באלוה אי לא פירש בהדיא שאינו מקבלו עליו אלא בעבודה:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:14:1	Sanhedrin 61a:14	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	בואו ועבדוני - עושה את עצמו עבודת כוכבים ומסית בני אדם לעבדו:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:14:2	Sanhedrin 61a:14	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	מחייב - מיתה כמסית:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:16:1	Sanhedrin 61a:16	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	רבי יהודה אומר לעולם אינו חייב - בשביל דבור בלא מעשה אלא בניסת לעבודת כוכבים ואבה ושמע ואמר אעבוד אלך ואעבוד אבל באומר בואו ועבדוני פטור אלמא טעמא דרבי יהודה במסית אחרים לעצמו טעמא אחרינא הוא דהא בניסת חיובי מחייב בדיבורא:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:17:1	Sanhedrin 61a:17	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	מסית לעצמו - במסית אחרים לעצמו שיעבדוהו אי הוי מסית או לא:	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:
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:17:2	Sanhedrin 61a:17	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	לא שמעי ליה - שהרי הוא אדם כמותם ואפילו הניסתים לשאר עבודת כוכבים אין ניסתין לעבוד אדם:	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:
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:1:1	Sanhedrin 61a:1	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	אסורה - הבהמה בהנאה ואע"פ שהשחיטה לאו לעבודת כוכבים היתה ואפילו לא זרק דמה לעבודת כוכבים נאסרה וילפינן טעמא בשחיטת חולין דגמר לה רבי יוחנן ממחשבת פגול דהויא מעבודה לעבודה דהשוחט את הזבח על מנת לזרוק את הדם למחר פיגול:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:1:2	Sanhedrin 61a:1	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	וריש לקיש אמר מותרת - לא יליף חוץ מפנים אין מחשבין מעבודה לעבודה:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:2:1	Sanhedrin 61a:2	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	הניחא - הא דמייתר לן זובח ללמד על הכלל ולא מוקמינן לה האי דרשא לומר שמחשב מעבודה לעבודה הא ניחא לרבי יוחנן דנפקא ליה לענין איתסורי ממחשבת פיגול איכא למימר דלענין איחיובי גברא נמי מהתם יליף ועל כרחיך אייתר ליה זובח אלא לר"ל דלא יליף עבודת כוכבים מפיגול נימא דהאי זובח להכי הוא דאתא שמחשבין מעבודה לעבודה:	Rava bar Rav Hanan concludes his analysis: According to Rabbi Yohanan, 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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:4:1	Sanhedrin 61a:4	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	העובדי כוכבים העובדין את ההרים - תניא במסכת ע"ז (דף מה.) ההרים מותרין בהנאה דכתיב אלהיהם על ההרים ולא ההרים אלהיהם:	Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika, objects to Rava bar Rav Hanan'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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:4:2	Sanhedrin 61a:4	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	ועובדיהם בסייף - אע"ג דמחובר לא מתסר עבודת כוכבים מיהא הוי והכא נמי לא בעיא קרא הואיל ושחיטה צורך זריקה היא והא חשב בשחיטה ע"מ לזרוק הוה ליה כעובד עבודת כוכבים דהא זריקה בלא שחיטה לא סגי הלכך על כרחיך אי השתחואה ללמד על הכלל נפקא ליה לא ה"ל למיכתב זובח:	Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika, objects to Rava bar Rav Hanan'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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:5:1	Sanhedrin 61a:5	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	איכה יעבדו - דמשמע כדרכה אין שלא כדרכה לא:	Rav Aha of Difti said to Ravina: According to what Rava bar Rav Hanan 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?
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:5:2	Sanhedrin 61a:5	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	למעוטי מאי - שלא כדרכה מאחר דילפינן בהשתחואה דאפילו אינה עבודת פנים מחייב שלא כדרכה אי נימא למעוטי עבודת בזיון לעבודת כוכבים שעבודתה דרך כבוד כגון פוער עצמו לעבודת כוכבים שזובחין למה לי למעוטי מהאי קרא:	Rav Aha of Difti said to Ravina: According to what Rava bar Rav Hanan 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?
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:6:1	Sanhedrin 61a:6	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	הא מהשתחואה נפקא - שמלמדת על הכלל שאינו חייב אלא דרך כבוד כהשתחואה:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61a:8:1	Sanhedrin 61a:8	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	אלא הא דא"ר אלעזר מניין לזובח בהמה - שהיא עבודת כבוד למרקוליס שעבודתה בזיון וה"ה לפעור אם איתא לרבה בר רב חנין שהשתחואה מלמדת על הכלל ל"ל האי קרא להכי מהשתחואה נפקא:	The Gemara raises an objection: But Rava bar Rav Hanan'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).
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61b:10:1	Sanhedrin 61b:10	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	אידי ואידי בניסת מפי אחרים - ומשכחת לה דלא נתחייב ניסת משום אבה ושמע כגון דלא אמר ליה מסית שבחיה דעבודת כוכבים כך אוכלת וכך שותה דכיון דלא ידע ביה מילתא דשבחיה מהדר קא הדר ביה ולא אבה ושמע:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61b:11:1	Sanhedrin 61b:11	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	מנא אמינא לה - דכי כתוב אבה ושמע בדאמר ליה כך אוכלת וכך שותה משתעי:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61b:11:2	Sanhedrin 61b:11	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	דכתיב - בפרשת מסית מאלהי העמים אשר סביבותיכם הקרובים אליך או הרחוקים ממך מה לי קרובים ומה לי רחוקים ולמה הזכיר קרוב ורחוק אלא מפני שדרכו של מסית לדבר על עבודת כוכבים רחוקה שאינו מכיר בה ומוציא בפיו השקר ואומר כך אוכלת וכך שותה לפיכך אני אומר לך הסתכל בעבודת כוכבים הקרובות לך ותראה שאין בהם ממש ומהן אתה למד טיבן של רחוקים אלמא קרא בדאמר ליה כך אוכלת כתוב:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61b:13:1	Sanhedrin 61b:13	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	רב אשי אמר סיפא - דמחייב באמירה בישראל מומר דכיון דקבל עליה תו לא הדר ביה שהרי הופקר בכך:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61b:14:1	Sanhedrin 61b:14	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	רבינא אמר - לעולם בישראל גמור וכולה מתני' בחד טעמא ותנא רישא עובד וסיפא אומר ולא זו אף זו קתני כלומר ולא עובד בלבד אמרו אלא אף אומר חייב:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61b:15:1	Sanhedrin 61b:15	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	מאהבה ומיראה - מאהבת אדם ומיראת אדם ולא חשבה בלבו באלהות:	§ 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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61b:15:2	Sanhedrin 61b:15	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	חייב - במזיד ובהתראה במיתה ובשוגג דכסבור מותר לעשות כן חייב בחטאת:	§ 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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61b:15:3	Sanhedrin 61b:15	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	פטור - בין במזיד בין בשוגג דלאו כלום עבד:	§ 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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61b:18:1	Sanhedrin 61b:18	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	אחד העובד - והלא המזבח והמקטיר עובדין הן אלא הכי קאמר אחד העובד ואפילו מאהבה ומיראה ואחד המזבח לשם אלהות דתנא סיפא לגלויי עליה דרישא דמאהבה ומיראה הוא ואפילו הכי חייב:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61b:19:1	Sanhedrin 61b:19	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	כדתירץ ר' ירמיה - אחד העובד כל עבודה שהיא דרכה בכך ואחד המזבח שלא כדרכה ולעולם רישא וסיפא לשם אלהות:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61b:1:1	Sanhedrin 61b:1	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	מאי שנא איהו - להיות אלוה יותר ממני ואין דקאמר ליה אחוכי עליה:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61b:20:1	Sanhedrin 61b:20	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	ולא תעבדם - יתירא הוא:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61b:20:2	Sanhedrin 61b:20	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	נעבד כהמן - שעשה עצמו עבודת כוכבים כדאמר במגילה (דף יט.) דאי לאו הכי לא הוה מרדכי מתגרה בו והיה כורע ומשתחוה לו:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61b:20:3	Sanhedrin 61b:20	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	Talmud	והא המן - מיראת המלך הוו פלחי ליה כדכתיב (אסתר ג':ב') כי כן צוה לו המלך וקתני דלא:	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.
Rashi on Sanhedrin 61b:21:1	Sanhedrin 61b:21	commentary	Rashi on Sanhedrin	Sanhedrin	Talmud	T	ודלא כהמן - דקתני יכול אפילו נעבד כהמן לאו למיסר מיראה אלא למיסר אדם הנעבד לשם עבודת כוכבים שלא מיראה למסגד ליה בסתמא והאי דנקט המן משום דעשה עצמו עבודת כוכבים הוא:	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.