skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Sanhedrin 61 – Intention to Worship Idols
Rav Hamnuna lost several oxen and went to search for them. Rabbah met him and asked a question: we have learned that one who serves an idol is subject to stoning. This implies that one has to actually serve the idol to be liable. But in regard to a subverted city, we have learned that if one says, “I will serve,” or “I will go and serve,” or “Let us go and serve” a certain idol, he is already liable. So is action required or is professed intention sufficient?
Rav Hamnuna replied, “In the first case he does not accept the idol as deity until he serves it. In the second case, however, his statement implies that he accepts the idol as his deity as of now – and he will shortly serve it. Thus, he is liable for something else - for accepting the idol as a deity” - precisely as we have learned.
The Talmud does not say what happened to the oxen.
Art: Paul Gauguin - Rave Te Htit Aamy Aka The Idol
3 comments:
Ralph said:
What is the case if he says: “I will serve” but having no intention to do so, only to save his life at that moment (pekuach nefesh), and intending to escape immediately before being actually required to serve?
Yes, great question. If he really means it, he is liable. If does not mean in, he is not liable. How do we know what he means?
That is what judges need to find out. We remember that there are two Jewish witnesses there who tell him, "Do not accept on yourself to worship this idol, because if you do, you are punished by beheading." He needs to acknowledge the warning and to accept it on himself by saying, "I am going to do it nevertheless." Moreover, he has to say it with the 3 seconds required to say "Peace to you, my teacher." If these details are not observed, he is not liable.
So as a practical matter, he can intimate to the witnesses that he is acting under coercion. If he is afraid that his subterfuge will be noticed, he can just wait an additional second before replying.
But of course, it would be pretty clear to witnesses anyway that he is acting under duress.
Post a Comment