Rava and Mistakenly Permitted Idolatry?

In Sanhedrin 61b-62a, there’s a dispute between Abaye and Rava about one who bows down from fear / love, rather than true worship to accept the idol as his deity. It runs as follows:

אִיתְּמַר: הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מֵאַהֲבָה וּמִיִּרְאָה, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: חַיָּיב, רָבָא אָמַר: פָּטוּר.

§ It was stated that amora’im engaged in a dispute concerning the following matter: In the case of one who worships idols due to his love of another who requested that he bow before the statue, or due to fear of someone coercing him to do so, but not due to faith in that idol, what is the halakha? Abaye says: He is liable. Rava says: He is exempt.

אַבָּיֵי אֲמַר: חַיָּיב, דְּהָא פַּלְחַהּ. רָבָא אָמַר: פָּטוּר, אִי קַבְּלַיהּ עֲלֵיהּ בֶּאֱלוֹהַּ – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא.

The Gemara explains: Abaye says he is liable because he worshipped it. Rava says he is exempt, as the criterion for becoming liable for idol worship is as follows: If one sincerely accepted the idol upon himself as a god, yes, he is liable; but if he did not accept it sincerely, he is not liable.

This goes on for a short while with three attempted proofs, and ends with justifying Rava in a kvetchy way, in the third proof:

וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בְּהֶעְלֵם דָּבָר.

And Abaye furthermore said: From where do I say my opinion? As it is taught in a baraita: If an anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, unwittingly engaged in idol worship, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He brings an offering for the unwitting act. And the Rabbis say: A High Priest does not bring an offering for an unwitting act of idol worship unless it was due to a lapse of awareness concerning the fundamental halakhot of idol worship, i.e., he thought that this action was halakhically permitted.

וְשָׁוִין, שֶׁבִּשְׂעִירָה כְּיָחִיד. וְשָׁוִין, שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי.

And they agree that a High Priest brings a female goat as his offering to atone for his act of idol worship, as does an ordinary individual, and not a bull, as a High Priest brings as a sin-offering for other sins. And they agree that a High Priest does not bring a provisional guilt-offering, which is ordinarily brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires him to bring a sin-offering. In such a case, he is exempt.

הַאי שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי קָסָבַר בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת הוּא וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לוֹ, הֲרֵי לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם! אֶלָּא דַּחֲזָא אִנְדְּרָטָא וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לוֹ.

Abaye infers: What are the circumstances of the High Priest’s unwitting act of idol worship that is not due to a lack of awareness of the fundamental halakhot of idol worship? If the High Priest thought that a certain building was a synagogue and bowed to it, and he then realized that it is a house of idol worship, why should he be obligated to bring an offering, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Since his heart was directed toward Heaven, it is not even an unwitting transgression. Rather, it is a case where the High Priest saw the statue of a person and bowed to it.

אִי קַבְּלֵיהּ עֲלֵיהּ בֶּאֱלוֹהַּ – מֵזִיד הוּא.

This case must also be clarified: If he accepted that person upon himself as a god, he is an intentional transgressor, and he is liable to receive the death penalty and not to bring an offering.

וְאִי לָא קַבְּלֵיהּ עֲלֵיהּ בֶּאֱלוֹהַּ – לָא כְּלוּם הוּא. אֶלָּא לָאו, מֵאַהֲבָה וּמִיִּרְאָה?

And if he did not accept that person upon himself as a god, but rather bowed to the statue in order to honor the person, e.g., the king, what he did is nothing. Rather, is the baraita not referring to a case where the High Priest unwittingly worshipped an idol due to love or due to fear of someone? This proves that this is also considered idol worship.

וְרָבָא אָמַר לָךְ: לָא, בְּאוֹמֵר מוּתָּר.

And Rava could have said to you in response: No, the baraita is not referring to this case, but to a case where the High Priest says to himself that idol worship is permitted.

אוֹמֵר מוּתָּר, הַיְינוּ הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר.

The Gemara challenges: If the baraita is referring to a case where the High Priest says to himself that idol worship is permitted, this is a case of a lapse of awareness concerning the fundamental halakhot of idol worship, in which case the Rabbis concede that the High Priest is obligated to bring an offering. Therefore, what is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and that of the Sages?

בְּאוֹמֵר מוּתָּר לִגְמָרֵי. הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר – קִיּוּם מִקְצָת וּבִיטּוּל מִקְצָת.

The Gemara answers: It is a case where he says to himself that idol worship is entirely permitted, whereas the case of a lapse of awareness in which the Rabbis concede to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is a case of upholding part of the prohibition and negating another part of it, i.e., a case where the High Priest recognizes that idol worship is prohibited but mistakenly assumes that certain idolatrous activities are permitted.

This seems like a kvetch because of what the gemara itself says. The initial dispute was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi vs. the Sages about whether it was shigegat maaseh, a shegaga in action, vs. a he’elem davar, unawareness of a law. Those are the words of the brayta. And then, because of Rava’s unique position, he is forced into saying / they are forced to put into his mouth an explanation in which the shegaga about action is almost equal to a he’elem davar. And the only reason we don’t call it a he’elem davar is that there is an important detail to make something technically he’elem davar, namely that you need deny part and accept part. That is quite a coincidence. And it is strange that the brayta would use such a misleading phrase, in contrasting with a he’elem davar.

This kvetch was perhaps not actually uttered by Rava. Instead, the phrase used is וְרָבָא אָמַר לָךְ, “and Rava would say to you”. So this is Stammaitic, and we don’t really know that there is not some other analysis that would not paint Rava into this corner.

However, that works best only with the Vilna Shas, which has Rava amar lecha.

All the other printings and manuscripts don’t have the word lecha. Note that immediately following lecha is the word la, no. Presumably, there was corruption one way or the other. The word la is not necessary, because of course Rava is rejoinding and so disagrees. But לא and לך are short words which begin with lamed and can be compressed to a lamed with a diacritic. We might have replacement (of aleph / chaf), or dittography, or haplography, where a word is erroneously duplicated (then changed) or omitted (due to the seeming duplication).

The top Tosafot reads:

ורבא אמר [לך] לא באומר מותר - ובריש הגולין (מכות דף ז. ושם) דממעט רבא מבשגגה פרט לאומר מותר התם גרס רבה דעני אביי בתריה אי נמי גבי גלות טובא בשגגה כתיבי:

and we can discuss this in a later post. But for now, the key is the dibbur hamatchil, which does not seem to have the word lecha, but which was inserted into the text. It might still be true that this is an attributed position instead of a direct quote, even without an explicit word lecha.

There is an earlier possible amar lecha for Rava, within the same sugya of bowing due to fear. In Abaye’s first attempted proof, Rava or “Rava” responds by invoking Rabbi Yirmeyah.

Here, at least Venice has also has lach. In all cases, Rava also says la.

This is the root or primary sugya in which the Abaye / Rava disagreement appears, and in which Rava would say בְּאוֹמֵר מוּתָּר. There are two dependent sugyot a bit later on the same daf, 62a and then 62b. These are the two variants of the sugya in which Rabbi Zakkai recited a (Babylonian) brayta before Rabbi Yochanan, and Rabbi Yochanan told him to take it outside. In the Stammaitic analysis of each of these, they say:

אֶלָּא מֵאַהֲבָה וּמִיִּרְאָה. הָנִיחָא לְאַבַּיֵּי, דְּאָמַר חַיָּיב; אֶלָּא לְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר פָּטוּר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

Rather, it is clearly a case where one worshipped an idol due to love or due to fear of someone, and he was unaware that this is prohibited. This works out well according to Abaye, who says that one who engages in idol worship due to love or fear is liable; accordingly, one who does so unwittingly must bring an offering. But according to Rava, who says that one who does so is exempt, what can be said?

and they answer that Rava would say בְּאוֹמֵר מוּתָּר. Not that the initial two Rabbi Zakkai / Rabbi Yochanan variants are later, but that Stammaic analysis component of those sugyot are later, and dependent on what was done by either Rava, or the Stamma speaking on Rava’s behalf, in the primary sugya.

Next up in exploring this topic, Rava as a youth / as an established Sage.