Explanation #1: This means Muteres be'Hana'ah, but not to eat, since one is forbidden to eat from the Shechitah of a Mumar la'Avodas-Kochavim.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, one is even permitted to eat it, seeing as initially he was not a Mumar, and it is only through this Shechitah that he became a Mumar.

Question (Part 1): Now too, that the Gemara says that 'Zevichah goes out ... ', it can still ask what "Eichah Ya'avdu" comes to teach us?

Question (Part 2): It is not needed to preclude 'she'Lo ke'Darkah' by other Avodos, since we already learn from 'Zevichah' - specifically with regard o Avodos that are performed in the Beis-Hamikdash.

Question (Part 3): In which case, "Eichah Ya'avdu" must be coming to include something, such as defacating in front of Pe'or and throwing a stone on to Mar-Kulis; since we cannot learn this either from 'Zevichah' or from 'Hishtachavayah'; And were it not for "Eichah Ya'avdu", we would have thought that even ke'Darkah requires performing the Avodah in an honorable way.

Answer: If 'Hishtachavayah would come to incorporate other Avodos - then defecating in front of Pe'or and throwing a stone on to Mar-Kulis would not require a Pasuk, since we would learn them from 'Hishtachavayah', to be Chayav because that is the way are worshipped, even though they are, in themselves not honourable Avodos.

Precedent: We say even more than that shortly, where we preclude 'Po'er le'Markulis from 'Hishtachavayah', and that is why we need "Eichah Ya'avdu" to include it, even though it is not the normal way of worshipping it, but because it is not performed in an honourable way; how much more so defecating in front of Pe'or and throwing a stone on to Mar-Kulis, which is not dishonourable, seeing as it is the way it is normally worshipped?

Clarification: Because from "Zove'ach la'Elohim" we learn specifically one who sacrifices to 'Mechubadim', but not one who sacrifices to 'Mevuzim'.

Question #1: We learn the warning for 'Mevuzim' from "ve'Lo Yizb'chu ... ". But what is the source for the punishment?

Question #2: Furthermore, we learn the punishment for Mechubadim from "Zove'ach la'Elohim". What is the source for the warning?

Precedent: Bearing in mind that the Gemara earlier, with regard to 'Hishtachavayah', requires a Pasuk both for the warning and for the punishment.

Answer: We learn the punishment (for both) from "Zove'ach la'Elohim" and the warning from "ve'Lo Yizb'chu".

Observation #1: According to what we just explained, we can understand why the Gemara says 'Im Eino Inyan le'Kedarkah, d'ha K'siv "Eichah Ya'avdu", rather than 'Im Eino Inyan li'Mechubadim, d'ha K'siv "Zove'ach la'Elohim Yocharam", T'neihu Inyan li'Mevuzim'.

Observation #2: It transpires that we need "ve'Lo Yizb'chu" for all cases of she'Lo ke'Darkah, and the reason that the Gemara mentions Markulis is because S'tam Mevuzim are not generally Shechted.

Question: Why do we not establish both of the above Pesukim by Mechubadim, so from where do we know Mevuzim at all?

Precedent: Just as later we require three Pesukim by Hishtachavayah, one extra one for she'Lo ke'Darkah by Mechubadim, and one for she'Lo ke'Darkah by Mevuzim?

Answer: Now that the Torah has demonstrated by Hishtachavayah that there is no difference between Mechubadim and Mevuzim, the same will apply to other Avodos as well.

Support: Rashi too, explains like this later.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that as soon as he agrees, he is Chayav, since the Gemara learns it from "Lo Soveh ve'Lo Sishma Eilev", implying that if he does agree and listen to him, he is Chayav.

Question: But surely we do not yet know that reason until Rav Yosef cites it later?

Explanation #2: The reason must therefore be because he accepts it as a god.

Question: So what if they don't listen to him? He should be Chayav anyway, no less than another Meisis, who is Chayav for his words alone, in a case where one hid witnesses, and then protested that one cannot possibly leave the Living G-d and worship wood and stones, where in the event that he fails to retract he is Chayav, as is implied?

Answer #1: We only say that with regard to a form of idolatry where his victims listen to him, and are drawn after him; but where he himself is the Avodah-Zarah, where they are not (because they will claim that he is in no way superior to them), it is not considered a proper Meisis.

Answer #2: Alternatively, throughout the Sugya, they are arguing about 'the Nisas (and not the Meisis).

Clarificaion (Part 1): And when the Gemara said earlier that there where they actually worshipped, everybody agrees that he is Chayav, it is referring to the Meisis (le'Atzmo), where they actually worshipped him (See Maharsha).

Clarificaion (Part 2): Because, since if they actually worshipped him, he would be Chayav, we must say that even with words alone, he is Chayav, like the Din of a regular Meisis.

Clarificaion (Part 3): And they argue by words alone, by a regular Nisas, there where he said 'Yes'; R. Meir holds that words alone are sufficient, and that the Nisas is therefore Chayav, even though he did not yet worship the Avodah-Zarah (Whereas according to R. Yehudah, he is not).

Clarificaion (Part 4): The Gemara concludes however, that in a case of Meisis to Avodah-Zarah, even R. Yehudah will concede that the Nisas is Chayav with words alone.

Clarification 5: And they are arguing over 'Meisis le'Atzmo', whether the Nisas is Chayav or not, but by 'Meisis', it is obvious that he is.

Implied Question: Even though in 'Ben Sorer u'Moreh', the Gemara implies that the Din by Avodah-Zarah is 'Yehareg ve'Al Ya'vor?

Answer #1: Granted, that one is obligated Lechatchilah to give up one's life; nevertheless, someone who fails to do so is not Chayav Misah.

Refuted Answer: We cannot answer that Rava follows his reasoning in Perek R. Yishmael, where he says that the Pasuk "va'Chai Bahem" overrides even Avodah-Zarah, provided it is not in public.

Reason: Because if we did, then why do we not establish the cases of Kareis that the Gemara cites that clash with Rava according to the opinion that holds 'Yehareg ve'Al Ya'avor', seeing as it is a Machlokes Tana'im?

Answer #2: Some commentaries explain that when the Gemara says 'Yehareg ve'Al Ya'avor', that speaks by S'tam Avodah-Zarah, whereas our Sugya is speaking about an Avodah-Zarah that everybody worships out of love or fear, similar to the case of 'Haman' that the Gemara cites.

Proof: In fact, our Mishnah ' ... Echad ha'Oved ... ' seems to be talking in such a case, because, if it was talking about S'tam Avodah-Zarah, it would be superfluous, since, from the Mishnah of 'ha'Po'er Atzmo li'Pe'or ... ', we already know that one is Chayav even if one intends to degrade it.

Implied Question: Granted, we could have established the Beraisa of 'Kohen Mashi'ach' by S'tam ...

Answer: Only the Gemara answers the Kashya admirably.

Question: According to Rava, why did Mordechai refuse to prostrate himself before Haman (see Maharam)?

Answer #1: Because he had the image of a Tzelem on his heart.

Answer #2: In order to sanctify the Name of Hash-m, like the Yerushami says in Shevi'is, citing the case of Papus and Lulianus, who were offered water in a cloloured glass (in lieu of poison), but they refused to accept it.