The Gemara seems to say that the intention of the person who does the act of
serving Avodah Zarah does not detract from the Avodah Zarah. Rather, the act
is still considered one of serving Avodah Zarah. How is this to be
reconciled with the Gemara earlier (end of 61b) that says that as long as
one does not intend to accept the Avodah Zarah as his deity, he has not
served Avodah Zarah? (See TOSFOS DH Af Al Gav.)
Tosfos (61b, DH Rava) asks further that we find that a person is obligated
to give up his life rather than to bow down to an Avodah Zarah. This implies
that even bowing down under coercion is considered a transgression of the
sin of Avodah Zarah. If he is forced to serve Avodah Zarah, he obviously is
not accepting Avodah Zarah in his heart. Why, then, should his act be
considered one of serving Avodah Zarah?
In addition, Rav Menasheh certainly did not intend to serve Avodah Zarah,
and yet he was told that his act was one of serving Avodah Zarah. His act
should be classified as one of Shogeg, an unintentional transgression of
Avodah Zarah. Why does the Gemara (on 61b and 62b) assert that -- according
to Rava, who says that serving Avodah Zarah out of love for another person
or fear for another person ("me'Ahavah u'me'Yir'ah") is an transgression of
the sin of Avodah Zarah for which one is Chayav Misah -- there is no case of
Avodah Zarah b'Shogeg? In our Gemara we see that there is a case of Avodah
Zarah b'Shogeg!
(a) TOSFOS (61b, DH Rava) first suggests that indeed if a person is forced
to serve Avodah Zarah at the threat of his life, his act of bowing down to
Avodah Zarah is not a form of idol-worship since he does not intend to
accept the idol as his deity. Nevertheless, one is required to give up his
life rather than serve the idol because of the Chilul Hashem that is caused
by bowing down to an item of worship. If a person transgresses and bows down
to Avodah Zarah instead of being killed, he is not Chayav Misah, because he
has not done an Aveirah of Avodah Zarah.
Regarding our Gemara, Tosfos (64a, DH Af Al Gav) says that the Gemara only
considers throwing a stone to Markulis a transgression of serving Avodah
Zarah when the thrower intends to *serve* Avodah Zarah through that act of
stoning. Why, then, in the incident of Rav Menasheh, was he told that he had
sinned by throwing the stone? Rav Menasheh certainly did not intend to serve
the Avodah Zarah! The answer is that, there, the Chachamim did not tell Rav
Menasheh that he is Chayav Misah, but rather that he is Chayav a Chatas
since he did an act b'Shogeg for which he would have been Chayav Misah had
he done it b'Mezid. (MAHARSHA, MAHARAM)
Why, though, should he be Chayav a Chatas if the Gemara (61b) says that when
a person does not accept the Avodah Zarah as his deity he is not considered
to be serving Avodah Zarah at all and he is not Chayav a Chatas? The answer
is because in the case of the Gemara there (61b), the person was not aware
that the object that he is serving is an object of Avodah Zarah. In such a
case, since he did not accept an Avodah Zarah *and* he did not realize that
the object was an Avodah Zarah, his act is meaningless. However, if he knows
that the object is an Avodah Zarah, but he does not think that this is a
method of serving Avodah Zarah, then it is considered Avodah Zarah b'Shogeg
and he is Chayav a Chatas. (See Tosfos 62b, end of DH He'elem.)
Following this approach, Tosfos later (65a) asks a question on the Gemara
there. The Gemara there says that Megadef is different from serving Avodah
Zarah, since Megadef is only "b'Lev," it all depends on what the person
intends in his heart. Tosfos asks that Avodah Zarah is also only "b'Lev" --
if a person does not intend to accept the Avodah Zarah, then bowing down
does not obligate him!
Tosfos answers that the Gemara must mean that the sin of Megadef is more
closely related to the thought behind the speech than to the speech that the
thought produces, as the verse implies. In contrast, Avodah Zarah involves a
combination of the two (the speech, or bowing, or other outward action, is
just as much a part of the sin as the intention).
According to Tosfos, what Rav Menasheh did was an act of Avodah Zarah
b'Shogeg. Why, then, was this not suggested (in the Gemara on 62b) as a case
of Avodah Zarah b'Shogeg for which one is Chayav a Chatas? The answer is
that this case would not answer the Gemara's question there, because the
Gemara was looking for a case in which one who serves Avodah Zarah is Chayav
*and* one who desecrates Shabbos in that manner is Patur. If a person serves
Avodah Zarah not knowing that this is a way of serving Avodah Zarah, it is
comparable to a person who does an act of Melachah on Shabbos not knowing
that it is a Melachah. In such a case, he would also be Chayav a Chatas on
Shabbos. This is similar to the way the Gemara there rejects the possibility
that the Beraisa (on 62b) is discussing a case of "Omer Mutar;" in a case of
"Omer Mutar," the person would be Chayav a Chatas on Shabbos just as he
would be Chayav a Chatas in a case of "Omer Mutar" of Avodah Zarah.
(b) Tosfos cites others who say that serving Avodah Zarah does not depend on
the intentions of the person doing the act. If the person was acting
unintentionally, b'Shogeg, and did not realize that this was a form of
Avodah Zarah, or he was forced to serve Avodah Zarah, his lack of intention
does not detract from the act of Avodah Zarah. Simply doing an act of bowing
down to the Avodah Zarah is considered a transgression of serving Avodah
Zarah. Why, then, does Abaye say that if a person serves Avodah Zarah out of
love or fear of a person (i.e. only outwardly, but not inwardly) he is not
Chayav Misah? Why should he be exempt according to Abaye? The answer is that
Abaye is discussing the type of AZ that is *always* served *only* out of
love or fear of a person. No one has actually accepted it as a deity.
Therefore, when he serves it, he is not serving an idol, and that is why he
is exempt. If something is an idol, then even serving it without intending
to accept it as a deity is a form of Avodah Zarah for which one is Chayav
Misah. Tosfos later (65a, DH Ho'il) points out that this also seems to be
the opinion of Rashi there.
How, though, are we to understand the Gemara that says that if a person does
not realize that he is bowing down to an Avodah Zarah, but he thinks that it
is a synagogue, or a statue that is not normally served as an idol, that he
is not Chayav Misah? The answer, again, is that when he thinks that this is
a different object, then even these opinions agree that he is not Chayav
Misah for serving Avodah Zarah.
This answers the first question as well. There is no case in which the
person will be aware that the object is an Avodah Zarah and yet by bowing
down to it he will not be Chayav Misah. On the other hand, if the person is
not aware that what he is bowing down to is an Avodah Zarah, he will be
exempt even from having to bring a Korban Chatas.