Introduction: If a person bows down to a statue that was once worshiped but he does not know this, and he knows that bowing to an idol is prohibited, is this nothing? Or is it idolatry by accident?
My learning partner asked a question in the Rambam. In chapter seven of laws of accidental sacrifices he says one who does not know a statue is an idol but he knows bowing down to an idol is forbidden and he bows down and sacrifices and offers incense and pours out wine in front of it is obligated only one sin offering.
In Sanhedrin 62b we find Abyee searching for some example of idolatry by accident.
The context is that he is having an argument with Rava if one serves an idol from love or fear but does not accept it as his god. Is he liable or not?
Abyee says "yes," and he starts to fish around for some example of idolatry by accident to say that that is a case of serving from love or fear. So he finds some statement in some place that says there is such a thing. Then he asks what is the case? Did he see a house of idols and bow down thinking it is a synagogue? Then his heart is towards heaven. Did he see a statute of a king and bow down? If he accepted it as his god, then he is liable; and if not, it is nothing. So it must be from love or fear.
The question that comes from that Gemara on the Rambam is that it seems like exactly the case of the Rambam. He bows down not knowing it is an idol, and knowing that bowing to an idol is forbidden, and the Gemara says לא כלום הוא it is nothing.
My learning partner suggested that the Gemara is talking about a mistake in the facts of the case, And Abyee and Rava are arguing about the law. This sounds really funny at first, but if you think about it you can see his point. Abyee is saying he bows down from fear of the idol but thinks it is permitted--that is the case of idolatry by accident that Abyee is searching for. So at that point I suggested looking at the Mishna LaMelech on the Rambam (Laws of Accidental Sacrifices, chapter two) where the Mishna LeMelech makes this distinction and goes into some detail about how it works.
I also asked someone to bring me the book of Eliezer Menachem Shach, the Aviezri on the Rambam which I hope will shed some light on this problem.
In the meantime I hope to do some thinking here to decide if my learning partner is right. At this point in time it looks to me that he is correct.
Appendix:
1) I left out a few details in the above essay.
One is that the Gemara does not actually say that the statute in the case of Abyee was worshiped. Rashi does say so. But it is forced by the logic of Abyee anyway. Even if Abyee would have talked about an אנדרטא statue that had not been worshiped he would have had to add an extra clause in the Gemara to get to the case where it had been worshiped.
2) The other very important detail that needs to be brought up is this idea of my learning partner. Let's think for a minute what could he mean? My learning partner is suggesting that Abyee means two things. If one serves an idol from love thinking that that is allowed then he brings a sin offering. If on purpose then that is the death penalty. If he makes a mistake in material facts like if the statue is in fact an idol then we see right in the Talmud itself that Abyee says that is nothing. So it certainly looks to me that my learning partner is correct.
Now we find in tractate Shabat that there is an argument between Abyee and Rava about cutting a radish and it turns out that it was attached. Abyee says he is liable a sin offering. Rava says no.[Shabat 72b]. But in the case where he picked up a radish and it tuned out that it was attached then both agree he is not liable. So what do we have from this? This: if one picks up a radish on shabat thinking that it is allowed to do so then he brings a sin offering. If he did not know it was attached it is nothing. Exactly like idolatry.--except it is not exact. What is the difference between this and cutting the radish?
My learning partner asked a question in the Rambam. In chapter seven of laws of accidental sacrifices he says one who does not know a statue is an idol but he knows bowing down to an idol is forbidden and he bows down and sacrifices and offers incense and pours out wine in front of it is obligated only one sin offering.
In Sanhedrin 62b we find Abyee searching for some example of idolatry by accident.
The context is that he is having an argument with Rava if one serves an idol from love or fear but does not accept it as his god. Is he liable or not?
Abyee says "yes," and he starts to fish around for some example of idolatry by accident to say that that is a case of serving from love or fear. So he finds some statement in some place that says there is such a thing. Then he asks what is the case? Did he see a house of idols and bow down thinking it is a synagogue? Then his heart is towards heaven. Did he see a statute of a king and bow down? If he accepted it as his god, then he is liable; and if not, it is nothing. So it must be from love or fear.
The question that comes from that Gemara on the Rambam is that it seems like exactly the case of the Rambam. He bows down not knowing it is an idol, and knowing that bowing to an idol is forbidden, and the Gemara says לא כלום הוא it is nothing.
My learning partner suggested that the Gemara is talking about a mistake in the facts of the case, And Abyee and Rava are arguing about the law. This sounds really funny at first, but if you think about it you can see his point. Abyee is saying he bows down from fear of the idol but thinks it is permitted--that is the case of idolatry by accident that Abyee is searching for. So at that point I suggested looking at the Mishna LaMelech on the Rambam (Laws of Accidental Sacrifices, chapter two) where the Mishna LeMelech makes this distinction and goes into some detail about how it works.
I also asked someone to bring me the book of Eliezer Menachem Shach, the Aviezri on the Rambam which I hope will shed some light on this problem.
In the meantime I hope to do some thinking here to decide if my learning partner is right. At this point in time it looks to me that he is correct.
Appendix:
1) I left out a few details in the above essay.
One is that the Gemara does not actually say that the statute in the case of Abyee was worshiped. Rashi does say so. But it is forced by the logic of Abyee anyway. Even if Abyee would have talked about an אנדרטא statue that had not been worshiped he would have had to add an extra clause in the Gemara to get to the case where it had been worshiped.
2) The other very important detail that needs to be brought up is this idea of my learning partner. Let's think for a minute what could he mean? My learning partner is suggesting that Abyee means two things. If one serves an idol from love thinking that that is allowed then he brings a sin offering. If on purpose then that is the death penalty. If he makes a mistake in material facts like if the statue is in fact an idol then we see right in the Talmud itself that Abyee says that is nothing. So it certainly looks to me that my learning partner is correct.
Now we find in tractate Shabat that there is an argument between Abyee and Rava about cutting a radish and it turns out that it was attached. Abyee says he is liable a sin offering. Rava says no.[Shabat 72b]. But in the case where he picked up a radish and it tuned out that it was attached then both agree he is not liable. So what do we have from this? This: if one picks up a radish on shabat thinking that it is allowed to do so then he brings a sin offering. If he did not know it was attached it is nothing. Exactly like idolatry.--except it is not exact. What is the difference between this and cutting the radish?
