Avodah Zarah

A Tanna taught: If a man worshipped [an animal] which is his own it is prohibited;  but if it belonged to another it is permitted. Against this I quote: Which [animal is considered to have been] worshipped? Any which was worshipped, whether inadvertently or deliberately, whether under compulsion or voluntarily.  How is the term 'under compulsion' to be understood? Is it not, e.g., when a man took his neighbour's animal by force and worshipped it?  — Rami b. Hama said: No, it is, e.g., when heathens brought pressure to bear upon a man and he worshipped his own animal.  [To this interpretation] R. Zera objected: But the All-merciful absolves anyone who acts under pressure, as it is written, But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing!  — But, said Raba, all  were included in the general law Nor serve them;  so when Scripture specifies He shall live by them,  i.e., and not die through them, it excludes the man who acts under pressure. After that, however, the All-merciful wrote. And ye shall not profane My holy name  — i.e., not even under compulsion!  How is it, then? — The former refers to an act in private, the latter to an act in public. The Rabbis said to Raba: There is a teaching which supports your view, viz.: Idolatrous pedestals [set up] in a time of religious persecution  are not annulled even when the persecution is over.  He said to them: If it is on that account, [the teaching you quote] gives no support to my view, for the reason that perhaps there was an apostate who worshipped at it voluntarily! R. Ashi said: Do not use the word 'perhaps', but there certainly was an Israelite, an apostate, who worshipped voluntarily.  Hezekiah said: For instance, he poured wine unto an idol upon the horns of [his neighbour's animal].  [To this explanation] R. Adda b. Ahaba objected: Can this be considered [an animal] which is worshipped?  [In such circumstances the animal] is merely a pedestal and is permitted!  — But, said R Adda b. Ahaba, it is, e.g., a case where he poured wine between the horns of [his neighbour's animal] in which case he performed on it an act [of worship].  This is in accord with what 'Ulla reported in the name of R. Johanan when he came [from Palestine]: Although they declare that he who worships his neighbour's animal does not render it prohibited, still if he performed on it an act [of idolatrous worship]  he rendered it prohibited. R. Nahman said [to the Rabbis]: Go, tell 'Ulla, that R. Huna has already expounded this thy teaching in Babylon!  For R. Huna said: If the animal of his neighbour was lying in front of an idol, as soon as he cut one of its neck-veins  he has rendered it prohibited.  Whence have we that he rendered it prohibited? If I answer from the priests,  it is different with priests because they are rational beings;  and if [I answer that it may be derived] from the altar-stones,  perhaps it is as R. Papa explained!