Avodah Zarah, Daf Nun Aleph, Part 3
Introduction
Earlier we learned that the Mercurius idol was worshipped by throwing stones at it. But what if someone sacrificed an animal to it? Is he liable even though this is not the normal way in which one worships a Mercurius?
א"ר אלעזר מנין לשוחט בהמה למרקוליס שהוא חייב שנאמר (ויקרא יז, ז) ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם לשעירים אם אינו ענין לכדרכה דכתיב (דברים יב, ל) איכה יעבדו הגוים האלה את אלהיהם תנהו ענין לשלא כדרכה
R. Elazar said: How do I know that if one slaughters an animal to Mercurius he is liable? As it is stated, And they shall not slaughter their offerings unto the seirim (Leviticus 12:30). Since this text cannot apply to the matter [of worshipping idols] in their regular way, since it is written, How do these nations serve their gods (Deuteronomy 12:30) apply it to the matter [of worshipping idols] in an unusual way.
R. Elazar rules that although Mercurius is usually worshipped by having stones thrown at it, if one slaughters an animal to it, he is still liable. This is because there is an extra verse that implies that one is liable for worshipping idols even if it is not in their usual way. Deuteronomy 12:30 is read as teaching that one is liable for worshipping idols by doing so in the way that the nations (the goyim) serve their God. This would be the idol s usual way. So then what more do we learn from Leviticus 17:7? We learn that a Jew is liable even if he worships the idol in a way that is not usual to the idol.
והא להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא עד כאן הוא מדבר בקדשים שהקדישן בשעת איסור הבמות והקריבן בשעת איסור הבמות
שהרי עונשן אמור שנאמר (ויקרא יז, ד) ואל פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו וגו’
עונש שמענו אזהרה מנין ת"ל (דברים יב, יג) פן תעלה עולותיך וכדר’ אבין א"ר אילא דאמר ר’ אבין א"ר אילא כל מקום שנאמר השמר ופן ואל אינו אלא בלא תעשה
But does [the verse and they shall not slaughter ] come to teach this? Surely it is required for the following teaching: Up to here it speaks of sacrificial animals which he dedicated during the time that private altars were prohibited and that he sacrificed during the time when private altars were prohibited, for the penalty is stated, And has not brought it to the door of the Tent of Meeting (Leviticus 17:4). We have heard the penalty but where is the warning? Scripture says, Take heed lest you offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see (Deuteronomy 12:13); and this is in accordance with R. Abin who said in the name of R. Elai: Wherever it is stated Take heed, or lest, or do not, it denotes a negative commandment.
The Talmud brings up the problem that Leviticus 17:7 is already used in a different midrash. To understand this midrash I think it is important to see the full verses:
(3) If anyone of the house of Israel slaughters an ox or sheep or goat in the camp, or does so outside the camp,
(4) And does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD, before the LORD s Tabernacle, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man: he has shed blood; that man shall be cut off from among his people.
(5) This is in order that the Israelites may bring the sacrifices which they have been making in the open field that they may bring them before the LORD, to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and offer them as sacrifices of well-being to the LORD.
There is some repetition here, particularly between verses four and five. To solve this, the midrash suggests that they refer to different historical settings. The first two verses deal with a period in Jewish history where private altars were prohibited, once the Tabernacle was set up. Thus verse four says that he must bring his offerings to the Tent of Meeting. The verse establishes the punishment for not doing so and a verse in Deuteronomy states the warning. These verses deal with a period in which the animal was dedicated and actually sacrificed when it was prohibited to offer outside of the central sanctuary, after the Tabernacle was erected.
מכאן ואילך הוא מדבר בקדשים שהקדישן בשעת היתר הבמות והקריבן בשעת איסור הבמות שנאמר (ויקרא יז, ה) למען אשר יביאו בני ישראל את זבחיהם אשר הם זובחים שהתרתי לך כבר על פני השדה מלמד שכל הזובח בבמה בשעת איסור הבמות מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו הוא זובח על פני השדה
From this point and onwards it speaks of sacrificial animals which he dedicated during the time that private altars were permitted but that he offered when private altars were prohibited, as it is stated, This is in order that the Israelites may bring the sacrifices which they have been making (Leviticus 17:5); [this refers to] sacrifices that I previously allowed you to make; in the open field this teaches that whoever sacrifices on a private altar when private altars are prohibited, Scripture ascribes it to him as though he sacrifices in the open field.
The verses that follow, from verse 5 and onwards, refer to a case where the person dedicated the animal when it was still permitted to offer animals on private altars, but then sacrificed it after the Tabernacle had already been erected, when private altars were prohibited. Although the animal was permitted as a sacrifice when it was dedicated, it was forbidden to sacrifice it. And even though he offered it on an altar, Scripture treats this as if the altar was irrelevant. It is like sacrificing in an open field.
"והביאום לה’" זו מצות עשה. ומצות לא תעשה מנין ת"ל (ויקרא יז, ז) "ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם" יכול יהא ענוש כרת ת"ל (ויקרא יז, ז) חקת עולם תהיה זאת להם זאת להם ולא אחרת להם
And bring them to the Lord this is a positive commandment.
From where do we have a negative commandment? Scripture says, And they shall no more slaughter their sacrifices (Leviticus 17:7). It might have been that this too is punishable by karet, therefore Scripture says, This shall be a statute forever for them [meaning] this is for them but the other is not for them!
This is the end of the midrashic baraita. Leviticus 17:7 is the negative commandment against sacrificing on a private altar. There is a lighter penalty in the case where he dedicated before it was prohibited to sacrifice on private altars it is only a negative commandment. This is unlike dedicating and sacrificing when private altars are prohibited which is punishable by karet, as the verse explicitly states.
In any case, this concludes the long difficulty. This verse is used here as the negative commandment for slaughtering on a private altar. So how can R. Elazar use it to prove that one who worships an idol in a way not usual to that idol is liable?
אמר רבא קרי ביה ולא יזבחו וקרי ביה ולא עוד:
Rava said: Read both and they shall not slaughter and they shall not [slaughter] anymore.
Rava says that since the verse uses the word anymore we can read it as alluding to two prohibitions. The first is to sacrifice on private altars and the second is to worship an idol in an unusual manner.