- Machlokes about verbally accepting a person as a deity
Rabbah posed a contradiction: our Mishnah, which teaches that העובד – one who serves idolatry is liable, implies that merely אומר – saying he will serve it is not liable. But the Mishnah on Daf 67a states that if one merely says "אעבוד" – “I will serve” is liable!? Many answers are given. Rav Yosef suggested that liability for verbal acceptance is a machlokes Tannaim: if a person says, "בואו ועבדוני" – “Come and worship me,” Rebbe Meir holds him liable as a מסית to avodah zarah, but Rebbe Yehudah exempts him. If his listeners actually worshipped him, all agree he is liable. Rather, Rav Yosef suggested they argue where they only verbally accepted him as a deity and disagree if verbal acceptance constitutes avodah zarah. However, Rav Yosef retracted, after finding a Baraisa where Rebbe Yehudah also holds one liable for verbally accepting to worship avodah zarah. Therefore, he explains their machlokes is specific to one who instigates people to worship him, and they say, “Yes.” Rebbe Meir holds they sincerely accepted to worship him, and he is liable as a מסית. Rebbe Yehudah holds they are insincere, because they reason: מאי שנא איהו מינן דידן – “What difference is there between him and us?” Rather, their “consent” is אחוכי עליה – mocking him.
- Claims about a distant idol: מטיבותן של קרובים אתה למד מה טיבותן של רחוקים
Abaye answers the contradictory Mishnayos, that our Mishnah discusses someone who independently decided to worship idols, and might reconsider, whereas the case on Daf 67a is בניסת מפי אחרים – one who was instigated by others, who is likely to be drawn after them, and is liable for his verbal declaration. Rava says both are discussing someone convinced by others, but one is only liable for a verbal commitment where the מסית told him: כך אוכלת כך שותה – “This is what [the idol] eats; this is what it drinks,” or כך מטיבה כך מריעה – “This is how it benefits; this is how it harms.” Since he was told of its “powers,” he is unlikely to reconsider. Rava bases this on the passuk commanding not to listen to a מסית attempting to convince you to serve idols “close to you” or “distant from you.” This is to teach: מטיבותן של קרובים – from the nature of the nearby [idols] (which you know are powerless), אתה למד מה טיבותן של רחוקים – you can learn what the nature of the distant [idols], and should not be swayed by the מסית’s claims about its supposed powers.
- העובד עבודה זרה מאהבה ומיראה
The Gemara says: העובד עבודה זרה מאהבה ומיראה – if one serves idolatry out of love or fear of someone urging him to serve it (but did not serve it sincerely), Abaye says he is liable, דהא פלחה – because he served it, but Rava says he is exempt: אי קבליה עליה באלוה אין – if he accepted it as a god, he is liable for worshipping it, but if not, he is not. A Baraisa quotes the passuk: לא תשתחוה להם – you shall not bow down to them, implying that to them you may not bow down, אבל אתה משתחוה לאדם כמותך – but you may bow down (respectfully) to a person like yourself. יכול אפילו נעבד כהמן – One might think you may bow down to a person even if he is worshipped like Haman, therefore the Torah adds: "ולא תעבדם" – and you shall not worship them. Since Haman was worshipped out of fear, this proves that such worship constitutes avodah zarah!? Rava answers that the Baraisa only uses המן as an example of a human avodah zarah, not the way he was served, which would only be liable for sincerely accepting the person as a deity.