One can ask on תוספות סנהדרין סג א in understanding why is there a difference  between לא תעבדם and לא תעשה מלאכה.  He says לא תעשה מלאכה is not a לאו שבכללות because it means don't do any kind of work.  While לא תעבדם does not tell us what kinds of things are called service. But if you go to page סג  תוספות makes the exact opposite kind of assumption.
תוספות   gets the ברייתא to be placing three things into the first part of the verse  ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו and the last part of the verse לא ישמע על פיך to mean only  אזהרה למסית ומדיח. That is fine. But then what are the three things? One is נשבע בשם עבודה זרה. And how can one get מלקות for that? Why is it not a לאו שבכללות? Because נשבע בשם עבודה זרה and הזכרת שם אלילים and one more thing are all the same thing--mentioning another god, so one can get lashes for that.
In what way is this different than לא תעבדם that one does not get lashes for because it לאו שבכללות

That is each Tosphot is fine by itself. But if you try to put them together you get a problem.

I used google for this Hebrew translation but just made a few minor corrections when it was necessary.

אפשר לשאול על תוספות סנהדרין סג א' בהבנתו מדוע יש הבדל בין "לא תעבדם" ו"לא תעשה מלאכה". לדבריו, "לא יעשה מלאכה" אינה לאו שבכללות, כי הוא אומר לא לעשות כל סוג של עבודה. בעוד "לא תעבדם" אינו אומר לנו איזה מיני דברים נקראים שירות. אבל אם אתה הולך לדף סג עמוד ב' תוספות הופך את סוג ההנחה להפכו הגמור
תוספות מסביר את הברייתא  באופן ששלושה דברים נכנסים לחלק הראשון של הפסוק "ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו" ואת החלק האחרון של הפסוק "לא ישמע על פיך" הוא אומר שהוא  אזהרה למסית ומדיח. זה בסדר. אבל אז מה הם שלושה הדברים? אחד נשבע בשם עבודה זרה. ואיך אפשר לקבל מלקות לזה? למה זה לא לאו שבכללות? מכיוון שנשבע בשם עבודה זרה והזכרת שם אלילים ועוד דבר אחד כולם אותו הדבר = להזכיר אל אחר, כך שאפשר  לקבל מלקות
?באיזה אופן זה שונה מ"לא תעבדם" שאחד לא מקבל מלקות על כי זה לאו שבכללות


So what is the difference between לא תעבדם and the three things that are included in שם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו? For the first there are no lashes, because it is a לאו שבכללות. For the second we say is all one thing. I fail to see any difference here.

Summery:
The last Tosphot on 63a makes sense--sort of. And the first Tosphot on 63b makes sense--sort of. But try to put them together! It doesn't seem to work. What needs to be done I think is to go the Pesachim and get a better idea of what לאו שבכללות is.

l84  same piece in midi same piece in nwc

n3

n3 midi n3 nwc

n1mp3  n1 midi   n1 nwc format

What I want is to go through the entire Oral Law. This process got interrupted in the Middle
But I at least want to mention what this entails.
The Oral Law is seven books. (1) The Babylonian Talmud (2) The Jerusalem Talmud (3) Sifra (4) Sifri (5) Mechilta (6) Torat Kohanim (7) Tosephta.

This process could be started simply without Rashi and Tosphot--just do the straight pages. Go through the Babylonian Talmud. And then when you have finished then instead of going back then you start the Jerusalem Talmud. And when you have finished that you do the halachic midrashim. So in that way at least once you have completed the entire Torah. [You need to go through the Old Testament also in Hebrew]
.

The Torah is monotheistic. This we know from the Rambam and Saadia Gaon.

And the Rambam spends the entire second volume of The Guide for the Perplexed  showing this in detail.
Also we find the Rambam in Mishna Torah saying when one  swears by heaven and earth it does not count as an oath because heaven and earth have no divinity in them.

And so we see that it is easy to seem to be keeping Torah and yet to be transgressing its major thesis--monotheism. For we see some people hold from some form of pantheism.
Not only that but sometimes people attribute powers to certain individuals





And we know from Tractate Avoda Zara page 41 the main thing which makes something considered an idol is the ability to save. So the Gemara says  An idol worshiper  nullifies his idol by saving, "If it could not save itself, how can it save me?"

See Rav Shach's Avi Ezri which is the source of my comment here.

I finally got to Sanhedrin 63b. But only by means of ignoring the last Tosphot on 63a.
And Sanhedrin 63 b deals with one who attempts to convince someone else to do idolatry.The first thing to notice is that the verse they bring it from does not seem to be saying that. שם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו לא ישמע על פיך the names of other gods you should not mention and they should not be heard on your mouth.
This seems to be saying not to mention the names of other gods. One could perhaps not mention the name of some god by spelling it try to convince someone to worship it. So what we have here is a subject of investigation to try to understand why the Talmud understands this verse in the way that they do,