As the source for Rebbi Ami's Din 'Zivach ve'Kitar ve'Nisach be'He'elam Echad, Eino Chayav Ela Echad', Abaye quotes the Pasuk "Lo Sa'avdem" (as we already learned earlier). He extrapolates from there that - 'ha'Kasuv As'an Avodah Achas'.

From two of the three Hishtachavayos, Abaye himself learns ke'Darkah and she'Lo ke'Darkah. From the third one he learns - Lechalek (that one is Chayav as many Chata'os as the Avodos that one performed).

The three Hishtachavayos in question are "Lo Sishtachaveh lahem" in the first Aseres ha'Dibros, "Ki Lo Sishtachaveh le'Eil Acher" in Ki Sisa, and "Lo Sishtachaveh l'Eloheihem" in Mishpatim. He ignores ythr fourth Hishtachavayah in the second Aseres ha'Dibros - because the second Dibros were merely a repetition of of the first ones.

Abaye, who learns that the third Hishtachavayah 'le'Chalek Yatzas', discusses Rebbi Ami, who obviously does not explain Hishtachavayah in this way - in order to explain his (Rebbi Ami's) opinion, even though personally, he disagrees with him.

According to Rebbi Ami - the third 'Hishtachavayah le'La'av Yatzas' (to preclude it from Kareis), as we learned earlier.

We learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Eichah Ya'avdu" that - one is Chayav for any Avodah that is ke'Darkah (even though it is not one of the four Avodos listed in our Mishnah).

The problem this creates with Abaye is - why he then needs one Hishtachavayah to teach us ke'Darkah?

We therefore amend Abaye's statement in that, when he says ...

... 'ke'Darkah', he means 'ke'Darkah ve'she'Lo ke'Darkah', which refers to an image that is not worshipped by Hishtachavayah, but it is ke'Darkah inasmuch as it is worshipped in a respectable manner.

... 'she'Lo ke'Darkah - refers to prostrating oneself before Pe'or, which is she'Lo Kedarkah inasmuch as it is generally worshipped in a degrading manner.

If we had had only one Pasuk - we would have included the former, and precluded the latter.

In spite of what we just learned, Rebbi Elazar above learned from "ve'Lo Yizb'chu", 'Zove'ach le'Markulis', and not first Zove'ach (Shochet) to an idol that is worshipped Derech Kavod, like Rebbi Ami did - because he learned that with a 'Kal va'Chomer' from 'Hishtachavayah'.

Nevertheless, the Torah finds it necessary to write "ve'Lo Yizb'chu" (and not to learn Shechitah from Hishtachavayah) - to confine the Limud to Avodos P'nim. Had we learned it from Hishtachavayah, it would have included all Avodos Kavod, even Avodos Chutz.

Rav Nachman ... Amar Rav rules that someone who declares to an image 'Eili Atah' - is Chayav.

If he meant 'Chayav Misah', then his statement would be redundant - since we already know this from our Mishnah.

So we establish Rav by a Chiyuv Chatas be'Shogeg, from which one might be Patur, even though he would be Chayav Sekilah for doing the same be'Meizid - because by Chatas, the Torah writes "ve'Asah Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos Hash-m", which teaches us that a Chatas requires an act (and not mere words).

We learned in a Beraisa 'Eino Chayav Ela al Davar she'Yesh bo Ma'aseh, K'gon Zivu'ach ve'Kitur ve'Nisuch ve'Hishtachavayah'. Resh Lakish establishes the author as Rebbi Akiva - because he does not require a full act, whereas according to the Rabbanan, who do, Hishtachavayah should be omitted from the Beraisa.

When Rav rules that 'Eili Atah' (which is even less of an act than prostrating oneself before it (for which there is no Korban, according to the Rabbanan) is Chayav a Korban - he is going according to the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, who does obligate someone who prostrates himself before the idol to bring a Korban.

Rav needs to tell us this, despite the fact that Rebbi Akiva has already taught us that Megadef (which is also only a Dibur) is Chayav a Korban - because the Torah specifically writes Kareis by a Megadef, but not by 'Eili Atah'.

According to Rav, Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk "va'Yishtachavu lo va'Yizb'chu lo va'Yomru 'Eileh Elohecha Yisrael ... ' " - that 'Eili Atah' is compared to Zevichah, with regard to Kareis and Chatas.

Rebbi Akiva conforms to the Pasuk "ve'Asah" mentioned by Korban Chatas, by sufficing with a 'Ma'aseh Kol-d'hu' (a slight act). He therefore obligates a Chatas for ...

... Hishtachavayah - because he considers 'Kefifas Gufo' (bending the body) an act.

... Megadef and 'Eili Atah' - because he considers 'Akimas Sefasav' (moving one's lips ... ) an act, too (In fact, according to Rebbi Akiva, "ve'Asah" precludes only a sin which is confined to Machshavah).

According to Rebbi Yochanan - if not for the 'Vav' in the word 'He'elucha" in the Pasuk (Ibid.) " ... asher He'elucha me'Eretz Mitzrayim" [implying that Yisrael at least considered Hash-m a joint redeemer with the Golden Calf]) - they would have been destroyed.

This conforms to the opinion of Acherim in a Beraisa. Rebbi Shimon objects to this however, based on the Pasuk "Bilti la'Hashem Levado" - which forbids combining Hash-m with idols no less than worshipping idols on their own (see Agados Maharsha).

So Rebbi Shimon explains " ... asher He'elucha me'Eretz Mitzrayim" (in the plural) to mean - that they had a strong urge to worship many other gods as well (see Agados Maharsha).

We initially think that Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Elazar exempts someone who makes a Neder or a Shevu'ah in the name of an idol from Malkus - because it is La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh.

The problem with the other half of his statement, sentencing someone who embraces or kisses an idol, or sweeps or settles the dust in front of it, to Malkos is - that they too should be exempt, since they are all 'La'avin she'bi'Kelalus' (individual La'avin that incorporate many acts).

The La'av the sinner actually transgresses is - either "ve'Lo Seilchun acharei Elohim Acherim" (Yirmiyah) or that of "Al Tifnu el ha'Elilim" (Kedoshim), provided this is not the way that they are usually worshipped.

We learn the P'tur from Malkos by a 'La'av she'bi'Kelalus' from Ravin Amar Rebbi Elazar (or Rav Avin bar Kahana) with reference to the La'av in Kedoshim - "Lo Sochlu al ha'Dam".

The prohibitions against eating either part of an animal before it is dead or from a Kodshim animal before the blood has been sprinkled, and the prohibition against offering a Se'udas Havra'ah (the first meal of an Aveil) to the family of someone who was put to death by the Beis-Din - are all included in the La'av of "Lo Sochlu al ha'Dam" (The latter is forbidden so as to afford the sinner an atonement for his sin [as we learned above in the sixth Perek).

The first two are statements of the Tana Kama, the latter, of Rebbi Dosa. Rebbi Akiva adds the prohibition of Beis-Din who have sentenced someone to death to eat for the rest of the day. Rebbi Yochanan (the Amora) adds that - "Lo Sochlu al ha'Dam" is an Azharah (a warning) for a ben Sorer u'Moreh (since the Torah would not issue the death-penalty without an Azharah).

Rav Avin bar Chiya (or Ravin bar Kahana) finally comments that - none of these five branches of the La'av receives Malkos, because they are all 'La'avin she'bi'Kelalus' (see Tosfos DH 'Al Kulam').

As a result of the above Kashya, Ravin reverses Rebbi Elazar's two statements, exempting someone who embraces, kisses, sweeps or settles the dust in front of an idol from Malkos. On the other hand, he sentences someone who makes a Neder or a Shevu'ah in the name of an idol to Malkos, in spite of the fact that it is a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh' - according to Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'Lokin al La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh.

According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, the La'av of leaving over the Korban Pesach until the morning (in Parshas Bo) is not subject to Malkos, because it is followed by an Asei to burn it (rendering it a 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei').

Rebbi Ya'akov maintains - that this is not necessary, since it is a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh.

Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with Rebbi Ya'akov - because he holds 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh Lokin alav'(as we just explained).

The Beraisa learns the Isur of Noder or Mekayem bi'Shemo from the second half of the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Lo Yishama al Picha". From the first half of the Pasuk "ve'Sheim Elohim Acherim Lo Sazkiru" the Tana learns that - one may not even mention the idol's name in one's day-to-day speech, such as 'Wait for me by Avodah Zarah Plonis!'

The Beraisa adds to 'Lo Yidor bi'Shemo ve'Lo Yekayem bi'Shemo' that - one may not even cause someone to swear by its name (which he derives from the Lashon "Lo Yishama"), in support of Shmuel's father ...

... who forbids entering into a partnership with a Nochri, since, should the need to swear arise, he is bound to swear by his god.

The La'av for Meisis is written in its own Parshah "ve'Chol Yisrael ... ve'Lo Yosifu La'asos". The La'av for Medi'ach is - "Lo Yishama al Picha".

When, after Ula had informed Rava that he stayed overnight in Kaln'vo, the latter queried the fact that he had mentioned the name of a god, he replied with a statement of Rebbi Yochanan who ruled that - one is permitted to mention the names of idols mentioned in T'nach which have since become obsolete.

We then quote the Pasuk "Kara Beil, Karas N'vo" - to prove that Karn'vo is indeed mentioned in T'nach, since (bearing in mind that a 'Lamed' and a 'Resh' are interchangeable) "Karas N'vo contains the word 'Kaln'vo'.

We query this however, from a Mishnah in Zavin, which gives the Shi'ur of one extended Zivus (which takes the place of three) as the time it takes to walk from Gadyon - (an image that was set-up in the vicinity of Shiloh) to Shiloh.

... which is equivalent - to the time it takes to make two Tevilos and to dry oneself each time ...

... a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan - who requires the name of the Avodah-Zarah to appear in T'nach for it to become permitted nowadays.

And we answer that - even though Gadyon is not mentioned in T'nach explicitly - the name 'Gad' [which is the root of Gadyon] is mentioned (in Yeshayah "ha'Orchim le'Gad Shulchan").

Even though Letzanus (mockery) is generally forbidden, Rav Nachman proves from the above-mentioned Pasuk in Yeshayah ("Kara Beil, Baras N'vo ... ") that - poking fun at idols is permitted ...

... which it demonstrates when it describes how Beil bent on its knees and defecated, because it could no longer hold itself back.

Similarly, we read the Pasuk in Hoshe'a, which, in connection with the priests of Beis Aven, writes "Yagilu alav al Kevodo ki Galah mimenu" - as if it says "al K'veido" instead of "al K'vodo", implying that the priests were pleased when their god defacated, thereby lightening the load that they had to carry on their shoulders.

The literal meaning of the Pasuk is that - they were pleased when their god went into exile, thereby lightening the load that they had to carry (the Pasuk really refers to the exile of the calves from Beis-Eil at the hand of Sancheriv [by worshipping it]).

Based on another prophecy of Hoshe'a, Rebbi Yitzchak describes the practice of the people - who would walk around with the image that they had made with their silver and gold, in their pockets, and which, from time to time, they would produce and hug.

Rebbi Yitzchak quoting de'bei Rebbi Ami based on the Pasuk there "Zovchei Adam Agalim Yishakun" explains that - the priests would make a bust of a wealthy person (whose wealth they fancied), which they would place beside the feeding-trough of the animals that they worshipped, and which they now began to starve. When the animals, who had fixed the image of the man in their minds, would begin running after him (thinking that he was the man who provided their food, the priests would convince him that their gods wanted him, and that he should sacrifice himself to them, whereupon they took his money (See Agados Maharsha).

Rava maintains that, if that was the case, the Navi ought to have written "Agalim Yishakun li'Zebo'ach Adam". He therefore explains the Pasuk to mean that - the priests would tell anyone who had sacrificed his son to their gods that he had done a great thing and that he should now come and kiss it.

Rav Yehudah Amar Rev explains the Pasuk in Melachim which describes how the people of Bavel made 'Succos B'nos' and the people of Kus, Nergal, the people of Chamas, Ashima and the Avim, Nivchaz and Tartak'. If ...

... Succos B'nos was an image in the shape of a hen, Nergal was an image in the shape of - a rooster.

... Ashima was a goat, Nivchaz and Tartak were - a dog and a donkey, respectively.

The S'farvim would burn their children to their gods Adarmelech and Anmelech, which were in the shape of a mule and a horse, respectively. Rav Yehudah explains the name ...

... 'Adarmelech' to mean - 'honor to the King' (its master), referring to the service of the mule, which carries its master's burdens on its back.

... 'Anmelech' to mean - 'it responds to its master (in war)', which was one of the prime functions of a horse.

Achaz passed his son Chizkiyahu through the fires of S'farvim. The latter survived however - by the grace of his mother, who had the foresight to smear him with salamander oil (from a lizard that is born in an oven that has been burning for seven years), which renders a person immune to fire.

Yisrael worship Avodah-Zarah so consistently only - as an excuse to permit themselves to behave immorally in public.

The analogy Rebbi Elazar gives to describe the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "ki'Zechor B'neihem Mizbechosam" is - like a man who yearns for his son (that is how they remembered their altars).

To reconcile this with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's previous statement - we establish Rebbi Elazar after they became accustomed to worshipping Avodah-Zarah, and it had become ingrained in them.

When Eliyahu ha'Tzadik was walking around Yerushalayim among those who were dying of hunger - he discovered a child lying among the dying.

After ascertaining that his entire family had perished, he advised the child - to recite the first Pasuk of the Sh'ma daily, in order to save his life.

Before producing his god, hugging and kissing it and suffering a terrible death, the child said - 'Hush, one may not mention that (the Name of Hash-m)', because his father had never taught him to say it. This too, speaks after worshipping idols had become ingrained.

The Pasuk in Bechukosai which foretells of this tragedy is - "ve'Nasati Pigreichem al Pigrei Giluleichem" (And I will place your corpses upon the corpses of your images).