About this episode
Rabbi Yirmiya explains that there are two verses about idol worship - one about bowing and one about slaughtering - each teaching different principles. The verse about slaughtering teaches that if someone performs any Temple-like ritual for idols, they are punished by stoning, even if that's not the typical way to worship that particular idol. The verse about bowing teaches that bowing specifically is punishable even if it's not the usual way to worship that idol, while other acts are only punishable by stoning if done in the manner that particular idol is typically worshipped. Rava bar Rav Chanan challenges Rabbi Yirmiya's interpretation. He suggests the opposite - that we should learn from the bowing verse that any act of idol worship is forbidden regardless of whether it's the typical way of worship. He argues that this must be the only relevant verse, since the slaughtering verse could be teaching a different law: that someone who slaughters an animal for their own use but intends to use its blood for idol worship is liable for the death penalty. This challenge only works according to Reish Lakish's view that the animal remains permitted despite such intent, making the verse necessary to teach about the person's punishment. However, according to Rabbi Yochanan, who holds the animal becomes forbidden (based on the laws of pigul ), no verse would be needed to teach about punishing the person. Yet Rav Papa suggests the question works even according to Rabbi Yochanan's view. Rav Acha dismisses the entire question, arguing that both Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish were only discussing the animal's status - the person's liability for the death penalty would clearly follow from the laws of pigul , making this verse unnecessary for that purpose. The Gemara raises and resolves two additional challenges to Rava bar Rav Chanan's question. Rava asks Rav Hamnuna about an apparent contradiction in our chapter's mishnayot : one Mishna indicates that while actual idol worship is forbidden, merely declaring an intention to worship is not, while another Mishna states that simply saying "I will worship idols" is enough to make one liable. Seven different resolutions are offered to resolve this contradiction. There's a debate about whether someone who worships idols out of love or fear for another person is liable. Rava and Abaye disagree on this point, with Abaye presenting three proofs to support his position that such a person is indeed liable.