📋 Shiur Overview
Lecture Summary – Rambam Laws of Idolatry, Chapter 3, Laws 1–7
—
Law 1: Obligation of Karet, Stoning, and Fixed Sin Offering
Words of the Rambam: “Anyone who worships idolatry willingly and intentionally – is liable for karet. And if there were witnesses and warning – he is stoned. And if he worshiped inadvertently – he brings a fixed sin offering.”
Simple meaning: The Rambam sets out three levels of punishment for worshiping idolatry: (1) intentional without witnesses – karet; (2) intentional with witnesses and warning – stoning (and also hanging, as mentioned earlier); (3) inadvertent – fixed sin offering.
Novel points:
1. “Willingly” as explanation of “intentionally”: The Rambam says “willingly and intentionally” – “willingly” is not a separate category, but rather a way of explaining what “intentionally” means: he does it willingly, of his own volition. This is “to exclude” other types of worship that the Rambam will later bring where one is exempt (because it’s not willing or not in the manner of its worship).
2. Inadvertence regarding idolatry – a difficulty: What does “inadvertence” mean regarding idolatry? With idolatry, the essential sin is heresy – if someone doesn’t know that idolatry is forbidden, he is a heretic inadvertently, which is a strange situation. The answer: inadvertence means he doesn’t know that what he’s doing is called “worship” (he doesn’t know that the act is forbidden), but he knows that idolatry in general is forbidden. He’s not a heretic – he just has a lack of knowledge in the particular detail of the worship.
3. Fixed sin offering: “Fixed” means that the offering is always the same, unlike certain transgressions where it’s “sliding scale” (according to the financial situation of the sinner).
—
Law 2: In the Manner of Its Worship – Each Idolatry Has Its Own Worship
Words of the Rambam: “The idol worshipers established many different forms of worship for each image and each form, and this worship is not like that worship. For example, Pe’or whose worship is that one exposes himself before it, and Markulis whose worship is that one throws stones at it or removes stones from before it, and many similar forms of worship.”
Simple meaning: Each idolatry has its own specific manner of worship. Pe’or – one exposes oneself before it; Markulis – one throws stones or removes stones. One is only liable if one performs the correct worship for the correct idolatry.
Novel points:
1. “Creativity” of idolatry: The Rambam shows that idolatry has tremendous “creativity” – countless images, forms, and different types of worship. The foundation of this: truth is one, but falsehood and fantasy have countless forms. Therefore there are so many types of idolatry with so many types of worship.
2. Pe’or and Markulis as examples of unusual worship: The Rambam brings specifically examples that are not “normal” worship (exposing oneself, throwing stones) – to show that “in the manner of its worship” is not what we would logically consider worship, but rather what the worshipers themselves accepted as their manner.
3. If one performs the wrong worship for the wrong idolatry – exempt: If someone exposes himself before Markulis, or throws stones at Pe’or – he is exempt, because he didn’t serve it “in the manner of its worship.”
4. The court must itself know the manners of worship: In order to obligate a person, the court itself must be expert in the manners of worship of each idolatry. This is not just a practical necessity – it’s a law regarding the court. In the Jewish Sanhedrin there is no such thing as an “expert witness” whose opinion the court would rely upon. The court itself must understand the subject. This stems from the principle that “we don’t listen through an interpreter” – even a translator is not valid in court. The same principle is later applied to sorcery – the court must also learn sorcery in order to be able to rule.
5. The exponential scope of this knowledge: It’s not enough to know all types of worship in general – one must know for each idolatry its specific worship. This is “exponential” – millions of types of idolatries times millions of types of worship.
6. [Digression: The verse “How do these nations serve their gods” – two uses:] The same verse “How do these nations serve” is used in two contexts: (a) Earlier – as a source for the prohibition to learn the ways of idolatry (do not do so); (b) Here – as a source that one must know “the manner of its worship” in order to be liable.
—
Law 3: Four Forms of Worship That Are Unique to Hashem – Liable for All Idolatries
Words of the Rambam: “But one who worships [with one of] these four forms of worship – slaughtering, prostration, burning incense, and libation – for any type of idolatry, is liable, even though this is not its manner of worship. As it says ‘One who slaughters to gods shall be destroyed, except to Hashem alone.’ Just as slaughtering is unique in that it is worship to Hashem… so too any worship that is unique to Hashem’s name, if he worshiped with it to another god, whether this is its manner of worship or not – he is liable for it.”
Simple meaning: Besides the rule that one is only liable for “the manner of its worship,” there are four forms of worship that are unique to the Almighty (worship of the Temple): slaughtering, prostration, burning incense, and libation. For these four one is liable to stoning for any idolatry, even if this is not “the manner of its worship” of that specific idolatry.
Novel points:
1. The foundation of “worship that is unique to Hashem”: The distinction between the four forms of worship and other worship: the four are “true worship” – worship that belongs to the Almighty (Temple worship). Worship like throwing stones or exposing oneself are only “worship” because a group of madmen decided that this is worship. But slaughtering, burning incense, libation, and prostration are intrinsically worship – they are worship regarding service of Hashem. Therefore, when one does them for idolatry, it’s always a desecration, even without a specific tradition by that idolatry.
2. The source of “one who slaughters to gods shall be destroyed”: Why does the verse say specifically “slaughters”? There are other ways of serving idolatry! The answer: The verse brings slaughtering because slaughtering is a worship “unique to Hashem” – it’s Temple worship. From this we learn: “Just as slaughtering is unique in that it is worship to Hashem” – so too any worship that is unique to Hashem, if one does it for idolatry, one is liable. “Shall be destroyed” – language of death/punishment.
3. The source for prostration – why is a separate verse needed? The verse “Do not prostrate to another god” is the separate source for prostration. If from “one who slaughters to gods shall be destroyed” we already learn that any worship unique to Hashem is liable, why do we need another separate verse for prostration? The answer (as the Kesef Mishneh says): Slaughtering, burning incense, and libation are all “inner worship” – worship that priests perform on the altar in the Temple. But prostration is not “inner worship” – it’s not done as part of the altar service. Therefore we need an external verse “Do not prostrate to another god” to include prostration. The Kesef Mishneh has a long discussion about this.
4. “Sprinkling and libation are one”: The Rambam says that sprinkling and libation are one type of worship. Sprinkling blood and sprinkling wine – both are a form of pouring/sprinkling a liquid, therefore sprinkling falls under the category of libation.
5. “Burning incense” means burning in general: “Burning incense” doesn’t mean only incense (fragrant items), but burning in general – as one burns on the altar. This is similar to slaughtering – both are parts of the sacrificial service.
Details in the Forms of Worship – Slaughtering, Libation, Breaking a Stick
Words of the Rambam: “One who slaughters a grasshopper for it – exempt… one who slaughters an animal lacking a limb – exempt. But one who pours urine – liable, because this is called libation.”
Simple meaning: Regarding slaughtering it must be similar to proper slaughtering/sacrifice – therefore a grasshopper (which is not an animal) or an animal lacking a limb (which is invalid for sacrifice) is exempt. But regarding libation even urine (a degraded substance) is liable, because this is still a form of pouring.
Novel points:
1. The distinction between slaughtering and libation: Regarding slaughtering it must be similar to proper slaughtering – therefore slaughtering a grasshopper or an animal lacking a limb is exempt, because it’s not fit for sacrifice. But regarding libation the definition is broader – even urine, which is a degraded substance, is considered libation, because the act of pouring is present. This is a novelty – that regarding libation we only look at the act (pouring), not at the importance of what is being poured.
2. Question of the Geonim: How can it be that excrement (urine) is better than lacking a limb? With lacking a limb there is an animal, just with a defect, and with urine there is a completely degraded substance! The Rambam didn’t find this difficult, because he holds that they are two separate categories: slaughtering must be similar to sacrifice (therefore lacking a limb is invalid), but libation only needs to be an act of pouring (therefore even urine is sufficient).
Breaking a Stick Before It – In the Manner of Its Worship, and the Law of Forbidden Benefit
Words of the Rambam: “An idolatry whose manner of worship is breaking a stick before it – is liable. But the stick does not become forbidden in benefit.”
Simple meaning: If the specific idolatry is served by breaking a stick before it, one is liable because this is “its manner of worship.” But the stick does not become forbidden in benefit.
Novel points:
1. Liable because this is its manner of worship: Breaking the stick is not one of the four main forms of worship, but one is liable because this is specifically how one serves this idolatry.
2. Why doesn’t the stick become forbidden? With sprinkling blood the blood is “scattered” – it undergoes a change. But with breaking a stick no change occurred in the stick that makes it an offering. The stick remains what it is, it didn’t become part of the worship in a way that makes it forbidden. Only something that is similar to “drawing near” – like slaughtering, burning incense, libation – becomes forbidden, but not merely its manner of worship. It’s possible that Tosafot disagrees with the Rambam on this point.
—
Law 3 (continued): Accepting Upon Oneself as a God – Acceptance of Sovereignty of Idolatry
Words of the Rambam: “One who accepts upon himself any type of idolatry as a god – is liable to stoning. And even if he lifted a brick and said to it ‘You are my god’ – he is liable for this speech. And even if he retracted within the time of speech – his retraction is nothing, but he is stoned.”
Simple meaning: A third way one can become liable for idolatry: only through speech – accepting upon oneself an idolatry as god. Even if he takes a stone (brick) and says “You are my god” – he is liable to stoning. And even retraction within the time of speech doesn’t help.
Novel points:
1. Three ways of idolatry: We now have three separate ways one can become liable: (a) in the manner of its worship – specific worship of the idolatry; (b) the four forms of worship (slaughtering, burning incense, libation, prostration) – which apply to every idolatry; (c) acceptance of sovereignty – only through speech, without any action.
2. No verse is brought: The Rambam does not bring any verse as a source for this law of accepting as a god. He brings verses for “do not worship them” and “do not prostrate,” but not for acceptance of sovereignty. It’s in the Mishnah, but the verse-source is not given.
3. He makes the idolatry and accepts it at the same time: The novelty is that there doesn’t need to already exist an idolatry. He can now take a stone (brick), lift it, and say “You are my god” – and he is liable. He makes the idolatry and accepts it as god together in one moment.
4. “These are your gods, Israel” by the Golden Calf: Perhaps this was the sin by the Golden Calf – the words “These are your gods, Israel” itself was already an acceptance of idolatry as god. Perhaps the slaughtering of sacrifices that was done by the Calf was “a festival to Hashem tomorrow” (Aaron perhaps didn’t want them to slaughter for the Calf), but the essential transgression was the speech of “These are your gods.”
5. Retraction within the time of speech doesn’t help: Just as with a blasphemer (one who blesses Hashem’s name) – if he says “You are my god” and immediately afterward says “No, I take it back” – it doesn’t help, he is stoned.
Worshiping Through Degradation – Pe’or and Markulis
Words of the Rambam: “One who exposes himself before Pe’or to degrade it, or who threw a stone at Markulis to degrade it – since this is its worship, he is liable.”
Simple meaning: Even if someone does the worship with an intention of degradation – he wants to degrade Pe’or by defecating, or he wants to degrade Markulis by throwing a stone – he is liable, because this is precisely “its manner of worship.”
Novel points:
1. Intent of degradation doesn’t help: The great novelty: even if he does not intend to serve the idolatry, he specifically intends to degrade it – he is liable. Regarding “its manner of worship” we look at the act, not at the intent. Pe’or “loves” degradation – the manner of worship of Pe’or is through such acts that look like degradation, but this is precisely what the idolatry wants.
2. What is his status – intentional or inadvertent? He didn’t accept the authority of the idolatry, he intended to degrade. But he is liable because this is a manner of worship. It’s a type of inadvertence – “it didn’t occur to him that this is precisely what the idol wants.” But it’s also a type of intentional, because he deliberately did the act.
3. “To spread slander” doesn’t help: One who does it “to spread slander” (to make a bad name for the idolatry) – also doesn’t help, because the act remains an act of worship.
—
Law 4: One Who Worships Idolatry Out of Love or Fear
Words of the Rambam: “One who worships idolatry… and didn’t accept it upon himself as a god, but rather worshiped it out of love – such as one who desired this form because of its craftsmanship which was very beautiful – or who worshiped it out of fear lest it harm him, as a person imagines about its worshipers that it does good and harm… is exempt.”
Simple meaning: The Rambam sets out a distinction between two types of idol worshipers: (1) one who accepts upon himself as a god – liable to stoning; (2) one who worships out of love or fear but doesn’t accept upon himself as a god – exempt (from stoning).
Novel points:
1. “Out of love” – loving the beauty, not divinity: The Rambam interprets “out of love” not that he loves the idolatry as a divine power (not “lest it do good to him”), but rather he loves the form/statue itself because it’s beautiful – “who desired this form because of its craftsmanship which was very beautiful.” It’s a question whether “beautiful” refers to the form itself or to the “craftsmanship” – that is, the artistic skill, the skillful way it was built. Both interpretations are possible.
2. “Out of fear” – believing in a power but not accepting as god: Regarding fear the Rambam interprets “lest it harm him, as a person imagines about its worshipers that it does good and harm.” The person believes that the idolatry has some power to do good or bad, but he doesn’t accept upon himself as god. The Rambam brings “does good and harm” only regarding fear, not regarding love – because love is a completely different nature: loving the beauty, not expecting benefit from a divine power.
3. The definition of “acceptance as god” according to the Rambam: An important principle: according to the Rambam “acceptance as god” is not the same as believing that something has power. A person can believe that the idolatry can do good and harm, and nevertheless not accept upon himself as god – and then he is exempt from stoning. “Acceptance as god” is a specific level of recognition as god, not just believing in a power. The Rambam holds that it can indeed be that idolatry has some power (as he said earlier about stars), but this alone doesn’t constitute acceptance as god.
4. “Exempt” – exempt but forbidden: When the Rambam says “exempt,” he means exempt from stoning but forbidden – he is exempt from stoning, but it’s still forbidden to serve idolatry even out of love or fear.
5. Difficulty of other commentators: Other later authorities struggled greatly with this Rambam, because they thought that if someone believes in the power of idolatry, this itself is already a type of idolatry. But the Rambam distinguishes: believing in a power is not the same as accepting as god.
6. [Digression: Relevance to serving Hashem out of love and fear:] Later authorities (mentioned a teaching from R’ Yitzchak Hutner) learned from this Rambam a principle about serving Hashem: if someone serves the Almighty out of love or fear but doesn’t accept the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, this too is not the complete service.
7. Mere love itself is not relevant: According to the Gemara, mere love – loving beautiful things – is not relevant to the prohibition, as long as the person doesn’t become completely deified. Only when it becomes so strong that it’s already accepting as god, is it a problem.
—
Law 5: Embracing, Kissing, Honoring, Sweeping, Washing, Anointing, Clothing, Putting on Shoes
Words of the Rambam: “One who embraces idolatry, or kisses it, or honors and sweeps before it, or washes it, or anoints, or clothes, or puts shoes on it, and all similar things – transgresses a negative commandment… but if its manner of worship was with one of all these things – he is liable.”
Simple meaning: The Rambam lists various ways of honoring idolatry: embracing, kissing, cleaning, wetting the floor, washing, anointing with oil, clothing, putting on shoes. All these are a negative commandment, but not liable to death. But if for a particular idolatry specifically one of these acts is the manner of worship – then he is liable to death.
Novel points:
1. Distinction between “worship” and “honor”: These acts are not “essential worship” – not one of the four forms of worship and not “in its manner.” They are a type of honor/service to the idolatry, similar to how cleaning a study hall is not the “worship” of the study hall (which is praying/learning), but it’s an honor. The Rambam calls it “without worship” – meaning without essential worship, but it’s still a type of way of worship/honor.
2. “But if its manner of worship was with one of all these things” – liable: Why does this need to be said, after all “manner of worship” is always? The answer: For most idolatries these acts are only honor/service, not the essential worship. Only for a specific idolatry where this is actually what one does when coming to the temple – then it’s “in its manner” and liable to death.
—
Law 6 (First Part): Appearance of Evil Regarding Idolatry
Words of the Rambam: “If thorns fell into his feet before idolatry – he should not bow because it appears as if he’s prostrating… if coins spilled before it – he should not bow… but should sit… a fountain of flowing water for idolatry – he should not place his mouth on its mouth and drink, because it appears as if he’s kissing.”
Simple meaning: The Rambam brings three cases of appearance of evil: (1) a thorn entered the foot near idolatry – should not bend down to remove it, because it looks like he’s bowing; (2) money spilled near idolatry – should not bend down, but should sit to take it; (3) a fountain made for beauty for idolatry – should not drink with the mouth directly, because it looks like he’s kissing the idolatry.
Novel points:
1. Prostration requires intent: From this law one can derive that prostration to idolatry requires intent – he must intend that he’s bowing to the idolatry. Just bowing toward an idol without intent is not liable from the Torah. The prohibition here is only from the aspect of appearance of evil.
2. Appearance of evil – rabbinic prohibition: These laws are apparently a rabbinic prohibition of appearance of evil, not Torah law. The person is not actually worshiping, he’s only removing a thorn or picking up money, but it looks like worship.
3. Source – Mishnah and the story of Chanah and her seven sons: The source for this law is a Mishnah, and it’s connected to the story of Chanah and her seven sons, where the king said to throw something down so the person would bend down (and thereby it would look like he’s bowing).
4. Fountain (dome of flowing water) – kissing: The prohibition to drink directly from a fountain belonging to idolatry is because it looks like kissing – and kissing was already learned earlier as a negative commandment. One can drink with the hands or with a vessel, just not directly with the mouth.
5. Historical context: It’s very possible that idol worshipers deliberately inserted thorns or took people’s money so they would have to bend down near the idolatry – a trick to make people look like they’re bowing.
—
Law 6 (Second Part): Making Idolatry – Making an Idolatry
Words of the Rambam: “One who makes idolatry for himself, even though he didn’t worship it – is lashed, as it says ‘Do not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness.’ One who makes idolatry with his hand for others, even if he made it for a gentile – is lashed, as it says ‘And molten gods you shall not make for yourselves.’”
Simple meaning: The Rambam sets out two separate negative commandments regarding making idolatry: (1) “Do not make for yourself” – one may not create/acquire for oneself an idolatry, even if one didn’t worship it; (2) “And molten gods you shall not make for yourselves” – one may not make with the hands an idolatry, even for others, even for a gentile.
Novel points:
1. Two separate prohibitions – acquiring vs. making with the hands: “Do not make for yourself” speaks of the very act of acquiring/creating an idolatry for oneself – this includes even buying or ordering from others, not just making with one’s own hands. “And molten gods you shall not make for yourselves” speaks of the physical act of making with the hands – this is forbidden even when making it for someone else, even for a gentile, even if one doesn’t believe in it oneself.
2. One who makes with his hands for himself – lashed twice: When someone makes with his own hands an idolatry for himself, he transgresses both negative commandments at once – both the prohibition of acquiring for oneself, and the prohibition of making with the hands – and he is lashed twice.
3. [Digression: Comparison to positive commandments:] A similar structure exists with positive commandments – such as with a Torah scroll, where there is a commandment of acquiring (buying) a Torah scroll, and a separate commandment of writing with one’s own hands, even for someone else. This is an interesting comparison to the structure of the two negative commandments regarding idolatry.
—
Law 7: Forms for Decoration – Forbidden to Make Forms for Decoration
Words of the Rambam: “It is forbidden to make forms for decoration, even though it’s not idolatry, as it says ‘Do not make with Me gods of silver and gods of gold’ – meaning forms of silver and gold that are for decoration, so that those who err should not err with them and think that they are for worship.”
Simple meaning: Besides the prohibition of making actual idolatry, there is a separate prohibition of making forms for decoration – even if one doesn’t intend to worship them – because other people might err.
Novel points:
1. “So that those who err should not err” – two interpretations: What does the Rambam mean by “so that those who err should not err with them and think that they are for worship”?
– Interpretation 1: Other people will think that *you* are worshiping idolatry (appearance of evil).
– Interpretation 2: Other people will themselves become attracted to the forms and come to idolatry (fence/safeguard for others).
The language “and think that they are for worship” – “that they are for worship” (that they are for worship), not “as if to worship them” (as if he would worship them) – leans toward the interpretation of appearance of evil: people will think that you are worshiping. But it remains unclear.
2. If there is no evil inclination for idolatry – is it still forbidden? If the reason for this prohibition is “so that those who err should not err,” perhaps in a time or place where the evil inclination for idolatry is nullified (as in our times), the prohibition shouldn’t apply? This remains as an open question.
Which Forms Are Forbidden – Human Form
Words of the Rambam: “Therefore one does not make a human form alone… not in wood nor in plaster nor in stone… that the form should be protruding, such as the drawing and engraving in halls and palaces… and one who forms this form – is lashed. But a sunken form, or a form of pigments, such as a form of weaving or embroidery – is permitted.”
Simple meaning: Human form is only forbidden when it’s protruding (three-dimensional, standing out). A sunken form (pressed in), or a form of paint/weaving/embroidery (two-dimensional) is permitted.
Novel points:
1. Ring with seal of human form – a practical application: If a ring has a seal (stamp) with human form:
– If the form on the ring is protruding – forbidden to have it (one may not wear/possess it), but permitted to seal with it (because the impression becomes sunken).
– If the form on the ring is sunken – permitted to have it (one may wear it), but forbidden to seal with it (because the impression becomes protruding).
In practice it turns out that both types of rings are problematic – with one you may not have it, with the other you may not use it. In practice one should not make either.
Likeness of Sun and Moon, Stars, Constellations, Angels
Words of the Rambam: “A person should not make a likeness of the sun and moon, stars and constellations and angels, as it says ‘Do not make with Me’ – do not make like the likeness of My servants who serve before Me on high.” This is forbidden even on a board (even not protruding).
Simple meaning: Likeness of heavenly bodies and angels is forbidden even sunken/two-dimensional, unlike human form which is only forbidden protruding.
Novel points:
1. What does “likeness of sun and moon” mean – a great novelty of the Rambam: “Likeness of sun and moon” does not mean how the sun and moon actually look (a circle etc.). The Rambam says explicitly in his commentary on the Mishnah that it means the forms that the idol worshipers fantasized that this is what the sun looks like – for example a person with a red face, or the moon as a woman with long hair, and the like. These are actually forms of idolatry, not just astronomical symbols.
2. The Ra’avad didn’t understand this novelty: The Ra’avad argues with the Rambam on this matter. It’s indicated that the Ra’avad understood “likeness of sun and moon” literally – as the physical appearance of sun and moon. The proof that the Ra’avad understood it literally is because he didn’t have the problem that the Rambam addressed, and he asks questions that only make sense if one understands it literally.
Forms of Animals, Trees, Grasses
Words of the Rambam: “Forms of animals and other living creatures besides man, and forms of trees and grasses and the like – are permitted to make, even if the form is protruding.”
Simple meaning: Forms of animals, beasts, trees, grass – all are permitted, even protruding (three-dimensional).
Novel points:
1. Summary of three categories: The Rambam’s position in three categories:
– Human form – forbidden only protruding; sunken/drawing/weaving is permitted.
– Likeness of sun and moon, stars, constellations, angels – forbidden even not protruding, even sunken/two-dimensional.
– Animals, beasts, trees, grasses – permitted even protruding.
2. Practical application – statues of animals: According to the Rambam it turns out that statues of lions, oxen, etc. are permitted – even protruding. In synagogues there used to be pictures of lions and such things, and according to the Rambam this is permitted. It’s possible that other authorities are stringent on animal forms as well – this remains as an open question (not looked into the Shulchan Aruch to see how he rules).
—
General Summary: Three Categories of Liability Regarding Idolatry
The Rambam’s approach in Chapter 3 sets out three categories of liability regarding idolatry:
1. In the manner of its worship – specific worship of that idolatry (only liable for that specific idolatry). Examples: Pe’or – exposing oneself; Markulis – throwing stones. Even with intent of degradation one is liable, because we look at the act.
2. Four forms of worship (slaughtering, burning incense, libation, prostration) – liable for every idolatry, because these are forms of worship unique to Hashem. The reason: “One who slaughters to gods shall be destroyed except to Hashem alone” – one took something that belongs only to the Almighty and transferred it to others. Prostration needs a separate verse because it’s not “inner worship.”
3. Acceptance of sovereignty (accepting as god) – through speech alone, without any action. Even if he lifted a brick and said “You are my god” – liable to stoning. Retraction within the time of speech doesn’t help.
Additionally there are two lower levels:
4. Worshiping out of love or fear without acceptance as god – exempt from stoning, but forbidden.
5. Embracing, kissing, honoring, sweeping etc. – transgresses a negative commandment (not liable to death), unless this is “its manner of worship” for that specific idolatry.
And at the end of this chapter are explained the laws of making idolatry (two separate negative commandments – acquiring for oneself, and making with the hands for others) and forms for decoration (with three categories: human form – only protruding forbidden; likeness of heavenly servants – even sunken forbidden; animals/trees – even protruding permitted).
📝 Full Transcript
Rambam Hilchos Avodah Zarah Chapter 3 – The Ways of Avodah Zarah and the Four Services Unique to Hashem
Introduction – Structure of Sefer HaMada and Hilchos Avodah Zarah
We are in the third chapter of Hilchos Avodah Zarah in Sefer HaMada. So in the first chapter we learned what the error of avodah zarah is, in the second chapter we already learned a bit more of the laws of avodah zarah, and here one goes into the details of darchei ha’avodah, how one serves avodah zarah and for which types of services one is liable.
The Rambam says… one can say that the first chapter was only the contradiction from, afterwards the aggadah which doesn’t come in, and the second chapter… now truly begins the essence of avodah zarah, which one is liable for, which one is exempt from, it’s truly halachah like every halachah.
Halachah 1 – Punishments: Kares, Sekilah, and Chatas Kevuah
The Rambam says: Kol oved avodah zarah birtzon b’zadon – birtzon means simply another way of explaining b’zadon, he does it willingly, to exclude what later he will say other types of services for which one is exempt – he does it birtzon b’zadon, one wants to serve avodah zarah, chayav kares. That is already itself. V’im hayu sham edim v’hasra’ah, if there were witnesses and warning, one receives sekilah. And earlier he also said teliyah, yes, one also must be hanged.
Shegagah by Avodah Zarah
V’im avad b’shegagah, and if he served avodah zarah b’shegagah, that means, what does b’shegagah mean? He didn’t know that one may not or… it’s a bit interesting b’shegagah, because kefirah isn’t there in this shegagah, that means he doesn’t know that he is a kofer. He doesn’t know that avodah zarah is not the Almighty. He doesn’t know that this is called avodah. Okay, he knows that this is called avodah. He knows that this is an avodah, but it’s not the same thing as kefirah. Yes, okay. Mevi chatas kevuah, one brings a chatas kevuah. Kevuah means fixed, not like there are certain mitzvos for which oleh v’yored, that means according to how much money one has. Chatas kevuah means one always brings the same type of chatas.
Halachah 2 – Every Avodah Zarah Has Its Own Derech Avodah
The Rambam says, what are the avodot? What is it that the oved is liable for? What does the oved do? The Rambam says: Avodot harbeh kavu ovdei avodah zarah l’chol tzelem v’tzelem, for every type of avodah zarah, l’chol tzurah v’tzurah, for every type of symbol of avodah zarah, v’avodah zo einah k’avodah zo.
Innovation: The Creativity of Avodah Zarah
I noticed here that the Rambam says that avodah zarah involves a lot of “creativity”. Because people use their imaginations. There are all types of avodah zarah, each one thinks up different things, different forms and different services with columns, there are for different countries different writings and names, there are all types, because truth is one, but fantasies and falsehood have many varieties, there should be many types of services for many types of avodah zarah.
Examples: Pe’or and Markulis
For example he explains, Pe’or, the most creative thing people came up with was disgusting things, like making its service that a person should, that a person should expose himself, they had special places for this avodah zarah. And Markulis whose service of this avodah zarah is to throw stones, one should throw stones at it, or throw stones, or remove stones from it. V’harbeh avodot k’gon eileh tiknu, many such strange services they established for different idols.
Halachah 3 – Derech Avodatah: One Must Serve According to the Derech Ha’avodah
The Rambam says, even though it seems like there’s no unified way of serving such. It’s not around it. The first thing he says already, he starts backwards. But let’s read and understand. If one exposes himself for the avodah zarah called Markulis, or he gives… he doesn’t do what one must do. He shouldn’t think that every service that every fool thought up, if one does it for any idol one is liable? No.
Again, Pe’or is the service, like exposing oneself to it. So if someone does for Pe’or the service for Pe’or, that means the avodah zarah of Pe’or. But if someone does differently, and he does the service of Pe’or, he does it for Markulis, or vice versa, if one gives to Pe’or he’s exempt, because he didn’t serve derech avodatah. One must serve it according to its derech avodatah.
The Source: “Eichah Ya’avdu HaGoyim”
It says, eichah ya’avdu hagoyim es eloheihem, how do the nations serve their gods, for the correct service for the correct idol, when it’s done this way, then one is liable. Interestingly, the same pasuk he brought earlier from this, from this one may not learn about avodah zarah, because what’s the connection? But here the Rambam sees a connection, he says…
Beis Din Must Know Darchei Avodot
Since it turns out that there are so many types of avodah zarah, and so many types of avodot, in order that we should be able to judge the laws… and only if he does it according to the laws of avodah zarah. If a fool makes up his own custom, he can’t make up his own custom.
Beis din must know darchei avodot. There’s no doubt that one who serves avodah zarah is not liable ad sheid’u derech avodatah. He says, beis din must know darchei avodot in order to know that the person was over derech avodatah.
Innovation: Beis Din Must Know Itself – There’s No “Expert Witness”
True, one could think why must beis din itself know? One could always bring some oved avodah zarah and ask how one serves this avodah. But we will learn later in Sanhedrin, certainly, a Sanhedrin must know everything itself. There’s no such thing in the Jewish Sanhedrin called an “expert witness”, that beis din should rely on, a trust that the other one sells. There is such a thing as a goy shalach l’fi tumo al ha’emunah. Wait, what does that have to do with it? A beis din that doesn’t know something asks its witnesses. No, there’s no such thing, it’s not true. To understand the reality there’s no such thing. For testimony there is a type of testimony, but a beis din that doesn’t understand the subject, it may not rule. From this we will learn later, it must learn about kishuf.
The same thing, three rows in Sanhedrin, one doesn’t listen from the mouth of a translator. Even a translator who says what the witnesses say is not valid in beis din. A Jewish beis din must be the one who understands. If he says I heard it from the one who understands, it doesn’t work. Just as we learned earlier that beis din must hear from the witnesses exactly the statement.
It’s correct that perhaps we’re speaking here of truly a din beis din. If it’s just to know the matter it could be, but a din beis din, beis din itself must understand. Beis din itself must be expert in hilchos avodah zarah. It must know how one fulfills according to each system of avodah zarah their service, and only afterwards can one continue.
The Exponential Scope of This Knowledge
But I want to add one thing, that it must be for the specific avodah zarah the specific derech avodah. Beis din must know a lot, because it’s not enough that one knows all types of darchei avodot. One must know for every derech avodah, for every avodah zarah. It’s exponentially more, because there are millions of types of avodah zarah and millions of types of avodot. Or the type of service that is truly unique to each one, since all these details one must know.
The Source: “Lo Sa’avdem”
The Rambam says, “v’ein zo derech avodat elil zeh”, and this is not the way of service of this avodah zarah. And the Rambam says, “k’mo shekasuv ‘lo sa’avdem’”. “Lo sa’avdem” means the service for the avodah zarah. Every avodah zarah has its own service. One must know the service, and that is the way.
Halachah 4 – Four Services Unique to Hashem: Zevichah, Hishtachava’ah, Haktarah, and Nisuch
There’s a minute, there’s a mishtachaveh. Mishtachaveh is something that is unique, not for every avodah zarah. “Lo sa’avdem” – every fool thinks it’s his derech avodah.
The Rambam says, “v’ein zo derech avodat elil zeh”. That which one needs specifically the service of the way, when a fool comes up with a derech avodah, it doesn’t make it now for everyone a universal thing that this is called derech avodah, and one says that everyone who does Pe’or is called an oved avodah zarah. You can only make for that avodah zarah, that means only avodah zarah. But here, what is truly has avodot, because these avodot are regarding avodat Hashem, they are true avodot, and if one does these true avodot for any avodah zarah, it’s always avodah zarah.
Innovation: True Avodot Versus Fantasy-Avodot
The Rambam says this means that it could be a thing like throwing a stone should be called avodah, that’s only… okay, the Rambam must it could be that one is exempt, right, exempt because it’s not the correct service. Perhaps avodot, then it’s unique for the specific avodah zarah that for it one does a specific service. But… there’s a thing that’s always called avodah, which is called mishtachaleh… just, other avodot, except. But mishtachaleh like maktim so much the four avodot, bowing down, or slaughtering a korban, or being maktir ketores, or pouring wine or wine, these are four avodot that are called avodah by avodat Hashem. These are true avodot.
Explanation: Maktir Means Burning
What does maktir mean? Maktir ketores. Just maktir ketores. I think that maktir means burning a ketores, that one burns anything on the ketores. A haktarah doesn’t mean just on the ketores. A haktarah means burning perhaps what you are slaughtering, and a haktarah is burning. They put it there and burn it. Okay and they mean, I don’t know.
The Four Avodot Are Universal
These avodot are called avodah in the Beis HaMikdash or perhaps this is called universal avodah, just as this is liable for all, whoever serves one of these four avodot for any type of avodah zarah, one of these types of avodot makes no difference to which type of avodah zarah one is liable, even if it’s not the derech avodatah of that avodah zarah, even if the avodah zarah doesn’t accept that this is the derech ha’avodah, but this is called the derech avodah in general, and for this one is liable for any avodah zarah.
Halachah 5 – The Source of “Zove’ach LaElohim Yocharam”
Why not? First he will make an example, and afterwards he will bring you in? Sometimes someone was menasech, made nesachim. Sometimes someone was zove’ach, he slaughtered a korban to Markulis. Chazal say shene’emar, what does it say in the pasuk “zove’ach laElohim yocharam”. The one who serves, the one who is zove’ach, or he does a zevichah for any elohim acherim, yocharam. Yocharam is language of death, he receives punishment. Why? Because bilti laHashem levado, only for Hashem alone may one make zevichah.
Question: Why Specifically Zevichah?
And the Rambam explains, zevichah is generally not the service of avodah zarah. Why does the pasuk say specifically zevichah? There are other ways of serving elohim acherim for which one is liable. What is zevichah at all in avodah zarah? “Zove’ach laElohim yocharam”, why did the Torah specify zevichah specifically?
Answer: Mah Zevichah Meyuchedes – SheHi Avodah LaHashem
Let’s say it this way, mah zevichah meyuchedes, what is special about zevichah? SheHi avodah laHashem. And for this the zove’ach to an el acher is liable, to any el acher, he is liable sekilah, bein shehi derech avodato bizevichah bein she’eino bizevichah. To learn from this that af kol avodah shehi meyuchedes laHashem, every avodah that is unique to Hashem’s name, im avad bah l’el acher, bein shehi derech avodato kach bein she’einah kach, chayav aleha. From this pasuk “zove’ach laElohim yocharam” one learns that every thing that is the unique service to Hashem if one does it for avodah zarah one is liable.
Halachah 6 – The Source for Hishtachava’ah: “Lo Sishtachaveh L’El Acher”
Shene’emar “lo sishtachaveh l’el acher”.
Ah, another source. So this is one source on zevichah. Now what about the others? We said four things: zevichah, mishtachaveh, maktir and menasech. On kol zevichah, what about the other things? What is the source for hishtachava’ah?
No, but every thing that is unique to Hashem. Very good, but he brings truth. But he could perhaps mean an avodah meyuchedes to Hashem from that family, like the avodot that one does in the Beis HaMikdash. He brings another proof, I don’t know. I think zove’ach means, one brings in everything that is similar to what one does in the Beis HaMikdash: zevichah, haktarah and nesech. No, no, but… ah, okay, let’s see. I’ll take “lo sishtachaveh l’el acher”. Yes. That’s true on throwing. I’ll finish until the end of the halachah.
I’ll take “lo sishtachaveh l’el acher”. It also says in the pasuk “lo sishtachaveh l’el acher”. Seemingly one should ask the same question, what specifically about hishtachava’ah?
No, good. V’chen hadin l’maktir ul’menasech, what is he getting at?
“V’chen hadin l’maktir ul’menasech”.
The Rambam, zorek u’menasech echad hu. It’s one type of thing. What does zorek mean?
What does that come in here just?
Just sprinkling, like sprinkling blood.
And sprinkling blood and sprinkling wine is the same to you. Did you know that?
Why should zorek be liable?
Because it’s an avodah to Hashem.
It should say here on kol avodah shemeyuchedes to Hashem. Zorek is also an avodah meyuchedes to Hashem.
Yes, but now each one of these has a proof.
I don’t understand. What’s the question?
Why does one need to have extra proofs actually?
On what?
On hishtachava’ah and on…
He said, from “zove’ach laElohim yocharam” we know that every thing that is derech avodah to Hashem, if one does it for avodah zarah one is liable. And why does it still say “lachach ne’emar”? And why does he still say what zorek u’menasech echad hu? I want to understand.
I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. This is… one struggles with this. The mefarshim, we’ll go further, we need to finish today. Um… I don’t know.
Ah, perhaps here is a bit of confusion. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t need to… I know. I know. I don’t need to bring two sources, I can make that one source is enough. Nu.
Discussion: Why Is Hishtachava’ah Separate from the Other Avodot?
I think perhaps this way, that maktir and menasech and zorek and all these things are similar to hishtachava’ah. This is an avodah that one does through kohanim on the mizbe’ach. Hishtachava’ah is not a part. An avodah of hishtachava’ah one does only when… when is there hishtachava’ah? Yom Kippur, but hishtachava’ah to Hashem on Har HaKodesh. But hishtachava’ah is a thing that stands in the… it’s a mitzvas aseh, or… it’s an avodah, I don’t know. But it’s not the avodah in the azarah before the Beis HaMikdash. Therefore when one comes to the Beis HaMikdash, one always sees these things, zove’ach, maktir, u’menasech. Hishtachava’ah one learns from “lo sishtachaveh l’el acher”. Since zove’ach, maktir, u’menasech it goes back to how he began. Since zove’ach, maktir, u’menasech, that this is always derech avodah.
Okay, so it actually says in the Kesef Mishneh roughly like you’re saying, that this is an avodat penim, hishtachava’ah is not an avodat penim, therefore one needs an extra pasuk. But there’s a long Kesef Mishneh about this, that probably there’s more to think about this.
Halachah 4 (Continued): Summary of the Rules of the Four Avodot
The Rambam says further… or this is all part of the rules. But the rules are agreed upon, everyone agrees, this is the rule. A thing that is avodatah kach one is liable only for that which avodatah kach, and the four avodot, that means mishtachaveh, zove’ach, maktir, u’menasech, one is liable for any avodah zarah. This is the halachah. Okay.
Now the Rambam goes to say certain details on the topic of the services (avodot). It appears that the four services also have a certain reason, because it is “to Hashem alone”. I mean, the transgression of this is because you took something that belongs to the Almighty and you carried it away to the wrong places. So it appears. “For he who sacrifices to gods other than Hashem alone shall be destroyed.” The transgression was on the “other than Hashem alone”. However, other services are not “other than Hashem alone”, rather the transgression is because that is the way of serving the idolatry.
Halacha 7: Details in Libation and Slaughter
Speaker 2: It is forbidden to do it, if it doesn’t apply to the confession of the spies. If he poured a libation on the confession of the spies, the obligation is established, because that is called nesech (libation). That is called nesech, ah, but this is a despicable thing, but there is a distinction, it doesn’t change the halacha. So says the Rambam.
If he slaughtered for it on its back, he is exempt, it would mean that this is called slaughter, but this is not called slaughter. He didn’t add anything to it, because it must be similar to slaughter or similar to libation. It is a novelty that even excrement of the spies can be called nesech.
And similarly if he slaughtered for it an animal missing a limb, he is exempt, because that is a disqualification for service. But this type of disqualification in libation, you would say that this would also be disqualified in libation. The Rambam indeed has a complete approach, and the Rambam says it doesn’t make sense, how can it be that excrement is better than missing a limb? The Rambam indeed didn’t find this difficult. There is a whole Gemara, and we won’t go into it because I don’t have time. But “in the manner of its service” is understandable, because there can be anything, even this leads to the part. But the slaughter must be a law of slaughter, so the Rambam says that if he slaughtered a locust or an animal missing a limb, he is exempt. It’s not a redemption in practice, the Geonim have many questions about this. So everyone is already stuck in their place of fear.
Halacha 8: Breaking a Stick Before It – In the Manner of Its Service, and the Law of Forbidden Benefit
Speaker 2: The Rambam says further, but the idol whose manner of service is with a stick, but the idol whose manner of service is with a stick is if he breaks a stick before it, he is liable, because that is the manner of service. But also the manner of service, the stick becomes forbidden, why? Because he broke it, he performed a service. So the stick became a thing that was forbidden. It’s the aspect of a sacrifice, he slaughtered the honors. Even if its service is, says the Rambam. But if he did one of the four services, does the thing become forbidden? Not the four services, a sprinkling or burning, a slaughter, a libation, nothing becomes forbidden at all. But one of the things that can be like an offering.
There is a Rambam, if he throws a stick before it, he is liable. Why is he liable? Because he performed a manner of service, because it’s similar to sprinkling of blood. No, no, we’re talking about liable if the idol is a stick. Again, one who serves an idol with a stick is liable because that is the manner of its service. Ah, you’re going to say he’s liable because that is the manner of its service, that is the service of the idolatry. But regarding something becoming forbidden, that a stick doesn’t become forbidden. Why? Throwing the stick is not like throwing the blood. Throwing the stick is not similar to throwing the blood, writes the Rambam, because nothing, there’s no change that happened in the stick. With blood it’s scattered, therefore it’s not similar to sprinkling, therefore the stick remains permitted. This is the Rambam’s halacha on this. Also there is perhaps a dispute between Tosafot and Rambam, that’s what it says here.
Halacha 9: Accepting Upon Oneself as a God – Accepting the Sovereignty of Idolatry
Speaker 2: Okay, now we’re going to learn another halacha. In other words, we’ve now learned two types of ways how one can serve idolatry: either in the manner of its service, or through the four or similar to the four types of service of Hashem that we learned. Now we’re going to learn another way how one can serve idolatry, which is not one of these things. What is that? One who accepts upon himself any one of all types of idolatry as a god. Someone accepts the authority of an idolatry, he says “you are my god”. I’ll tell you, yes, like “these are your gods, O Israel” that the Jews said. Perhaps that’s what it was. By the calf they didn’t… Yes, it says they slaughtered sacrifices, but it could be that the slaughtering of sacrifices was perhaps “a festival to Hashem tomorrow”, it could be Aaron didn’t want them to slaughter for the calf, it could be the service was the “these are your gods, O Israel” itself. Both, it’s certain that this made an idolatry according to the intentions.
Okay, what is accepting idolatry as a god is liable to stoning? Why is he liable to stoning? This isn’t… Leah, what is the source for this? He doesn’t bring a source. What is the source that accepting as a god is liable? It says in the Mishna, but what is the source from the verse? The Rambam doesn’t bring a verse. He brings a verse on “you shall not serve them”, on “you shall not bow down”. He doesn’t bring on accepting idolatry against one’s will.
Accepting idolatry is like he says, let’s say an acceptance of sovereignty, acceptance of the sovereignty of idolatry. Says the Rambam, “and even if he lifted a brick and said to it ‘you are my god’, behold he is liable for this statement”, or such a type of language which is a language of acceptance against one’s will, he is liable. He didn’t even have an idolatry before, now he made the idolatry, he took a stone and he said… No, he makes the service with the idolatry together. The service is the acceptance against one’s will, that itself is a service, he takes a brick and he says “you are my god”. Making a brick for your god, that is the prohibition, that is the stoning.
Says the Rambam further, “even if he retracted within the time of speech”, on this also doesn’t help any retraction within the time of speech, just as we learned earlier regarding a blasphemer, he says “yes, this is my god”, no, I take it back, this is not my god, “his retraction is nothing, but he is stoned”. If he doesn’t have the retraction, but he is stoned, he receives lashes. No, stoning, he receives stoning. Very good.
Halacha 10: Serving in a Degrading Manner – Pe’or and Markulis
Speaker 2: If he serves idolatry in its manner, a brick, one serves idolatry in its manner, even if he did it in a degrading manner, even if he intended to… let’s say he passes by a Pe’or and he wants to degrade the Pe’or, but if that is the manner of its service, it doesn’t help that he intended it in a degrading manner, and he is liable. How so? How so? If he defecated before Pe’or in order to degrade it, or threw a stone at Markulis in order to degrade it, since its service is in this manner, he is liable. But he is inadvertent (shogeg), because he didn’t intend to be joining it. Even if he didn’t accept its authority, but he is liable because that is called a manner of service, therefore he is forced or inadvertent. He didn’t know, he didn’t know that this is the manner of its service, therefore he doesn’t do it. But there is a certain intentionality here, because he wants to degrade it. It didn’t occur to him, that’s the problem, it didn’t occur to him that this is exactly what the idol wants, it loves degradation.
Okay. No, he didn’t say that the idol loves, he said that Pe’or loves that one defecates, that one defecates as a service, not to degrade it.
The one who did this to spread slander doesn’t help, because the one who is to spread slander, he is to spread slander. He doesn’t mean to spread slander, but he is to spread slander.
The friend says, it’s not such a nice thing like action and doing and action. No, but the one who does it because he thinks that this is the…
Halacha 11: One Who Serves Idolatry Out of Love or Fear
The Words of the Rambam:
“One who serves idolatry out of love, such as one who desired this form because of its craftsmanship that was exceedingly beautiful, or who served it out of fear of it lest it harm him, as its worshipers imagine that it does good and harm – if he accepted it upon himself as a god, he is liable to stoning. But if he served it in the manner of its service, or with one of the four services, out of love or fear – he is exempt.”
Explanation of the Law
Because he believes in it, he doesn’t do it with his heart trembling. I look at it as degradation, but he has in his head a whole philosophy why this is the right way. People do things that you look at as degradation, they think it’s actually a good thing.
Okay, now comes another interesting halacha. If someone serves idolatry but doesn’t accept it as a god, rather one who serves idolatry out of love, because he loves it. He knows this isn’t a god, but I love the thing, I love the idolatry.
Such as, says the Rambam, such as one who desired this form because of its craftsmanship that was exceedingly beautiful. There is some idol that others take it as idolatry, but he doesn’t believe in it as idolatry, but he loves it very much, it’s a very beautiful statue.
The service apparently, not just the… ah, the statue itself. The form is beautiful, that was beautiful, or the craftsmanship is beautiful. The beautiful applies to the craftsmanship or to the form. Craftsmanship means apparently, if you’re correct, craftsmanship means the creative work, the way how it was built.
And therefore he gives it an offering. Suddenly such a person goes, “wow, such a beautiful statue, I think I should give an offering”? What does it come in? It’s funny, no? Let’s say not an offering, but… let’s say he bows. He kisses it, yes. Kissing we’ve always seen, it’s only a prohibition. Ah, okay.
I don’t know, very interesting. Oh, let’s see what the Rambam says. Or who served it out of fear, he is afraid of the idolatry, lest it harm him, perhaps the idolatry will do him harm, he doesn’t accept it as a god, but he is afraid perhaps the idolatry has some power, some power, but not in a way that is called idol worship.
Such as, as a person imagines about its worshipers that it does good and harm. Very good. So he is afraid of it, but he doesn’t accept it upon himself as a god.
The Law: Acceptance as a God Versus Service Without Acceptance
Says the Rambam, even if he accepted because he is afraid, or because he loves it, so you should indeed be liable to stoning. But if it’s not idolatry, therefore even if he accepts it upon himself as a god, it comes out that if he serves it in the manner of idolatry, he is not liable.
Not, and he didn’t accept it upon himself as a god. If he accepted it upon himself as a god he is liable to stoning, even on that alone, and certainly if he does services. If he serves it, does one of the services, and he didn’t accept it upon himself as a god, he is exempt.
Is he then a problem on the idolatry, or is he only in services, but his fear out of love and fear was not an acceptance as a god, he is exempt.
I think that the exemption is exempt but forbidden, I don’t know if he means that it’s permitted. He is exempt from stoning, but he still may not do it. It’s not permitted to be a worshiper of idolatry. What is he talking about here? I think we’ve already learned. There’s no way to do idolatry.
The Rambam’s Innovation: The Definition of Acceptance as a God
In any case, this is the Rambam’s approach, and one can have many doubts about this. There were many later authorities who say that from this one learns that if someone serves the Almighty, he hopes and he loves the Almighty, but he doesn’t accept the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, one can learn that it’s not… It’s a statement of R’ Hutner. Anyway, regarding this don’t do so, there are other later authorities. Okay.
The Gemara says here that simply, love is not relevant. What does one say? Loving things that are beautiful, but one may not become completely idolatrous, the person should become completely taken over. That is already accepting it as a god, one can love something that is beautiful.
—
Halacha 12: Honoring Idolatry
Says the Rambam further, Halacha 5: So this is everything, until now we’ve learned the basic things. We learned the four services, we learned ma’avir, we learned accepting upon oneself as a god. Okay, we learned accepting upon oneself as a god, the three things. Now we’re going to learn a fourth type of thing, which is not one of these things, and from everything that… It’s not stoning, but it’s still liable, it’s still a prohibition.
The Words of the Rambam
Says the Rambam, One who embraces idolatry, someone hugs, like the language of the body, he takes the idolatry around in his body. Or who kisses it, or he kisses it. Or who honors it and sweeps before it, he sweeps. Or he honors, honors means to sweep, sweeps means to… or sweeps, he makes the idolatry, he makes the floor nice, it’s an obligation. Or who washes it, he washes off the idolatry. Or he washes and he anoints the idolatry with oil, or he dresses it, or a man puts shoes on it.
All similar things to these. But someone who doesn’t need a shoe, I don’t know, I can’t give you one. Anyway, difficult. All similar things to these. I don’t understand, are you explaining to me, a coat, a shoe, how does one go with a shoe? All similar things to these. Okay, anyway, yes. Whatever, these are all ways of honoring something.
Distinction Between Service and Honor
Yes, serving not in the manner of its service, not in its service. Not in its service you meant the main service, but these are included in services, also a type of way of service. He says even, it could be even not so much, even not so explicit. Because simply not its service means the main service, but this is not included in any main service. It could be that service is because I don’t know, service is a way of, is the type of way of honoring, and this is also a way of honoring. Aha, it’s like a… okay. Yes.
Further. Says the Rambam, “But if the manner of its service was with one of all these things”. If that is the manner of service, it’s obvious, we’ve already learned earlier that idolatry is served, and he did it to serve, he is liable. If that is the manner of service, that’s only to honor, not the manner of service.
I don’t understand, it’s always the manner of service. Every idolatry one does, I mean not… But this is not the type, it could be this is not what one does when one comes to the church to do.
Explanation of the Distinction
So in other words, it must be, let’s learn to think two ways that one can learn here. One can learn that the simple meaning is, even a normal thing, the worshiper of idolatry also does the honor, but you ask him, is that the main service? He says no, that’s an honor.
Look, as Rav Kook thinks, a person comes into the beis medrash (study hall) and he sweeps out the beis medrash and he honors the beis medrash, but that’s not the avodah (service) of the beis medrash. The avodah of the beis medrash is davening (praying), learning. But if you would ask someone, what does one do here in the beis medrash or in that sort of avodah zarah (idolatry)? They will say, “No, what does one do? This, one kisses it.” Yes, then it is chayav (liable). Okay.
—
Halacha 13: Maris Ayin (Appearance of Impropriety) by Avodah Zarah
The Rambam says a halacha, an interesting halacha. What is if someone… says the Rambam, I mean, not what is the definition of avodah zarah. Let’s learn it. Yes, shelo yichof. This is indeed a matter of maris ayin regarding avodah zarah. One may not look like you’re bowing. And the halacha is learned from… it’s a Mishnah, but by the story of Chana and her seven sons it says so. The king said, “Throw down something and bow down to it.”
Very good, but that’s what you think. But one must first understand the halacha. Perhaps it doesn’t go with the Chassidus. I don’t know. Because here stands a halacha. So, what does it say here?
Nashru Lo Kotzim B’raglav (Thorns Fell at His Feet)
“Nashru lo kotzim b’raglav lifnei avodah zarah”, he is right next to an avodah zarah and a thorn got into him, he wants to bend down to remove the thorn. But one should not do it, “lo yishuach”, he should not bend down as if he’s learning to remove the thorn, “mipnei shenireh k’mishtachaveh”. Because it looks like he’s bowing.
In other words, if he does it, he is not an oved (worshipper), because mishtachaveh l’avodah zarah (bowing to idolatry) means with intention. There’s missing an intention. He must have intention that he’s bowing to the idol. Just bowing toward an idol is apparently not forbidden, because he’s not bowing, he’s removing a splinter from his foot. But it looks like it. It looks like it. It looks like it.
Nishp’chu Lo Ma’os B’faneha (Money Spilled Before It)
“Nishp’chu lo ma’os b’faneha”, money just spilled out for him, “lo yishuach”, he should not bend down to take it, “mipnei shenireh k’mishtachaveh”. Also because it looks like he’s bowing. “Ela yoshev”, he should sit down to take it.
Ah, it’s very possible that the ovdei kochavim (idol worshippers) who were pious about avodah zarah, they inserted thorns or took people’s money so that they wanted you to bow. But the simple meaning is that it’s not death, rather it’s forbidden from maris ayin. It’s a rabbinic prohibition, such a halacha, apparently.
Kipah Shel Miklachas Mayim (Fountain Dome)
Another one, “kipah shel miklachas mayim l’avodah zarah”, something that is made for beauty for the avodah zarah, “lo yaniach piv al piha v’yishteh”, he wants to drink, he wants to drink from the fountain, but he should not do it, because menashek (kissing) we said earlier is also a sort of derech avodah (manner of worship), included in avodah. Because it looks like he’s kissing the avodah zarah, this too is forbidden as maris ayin. One can drink with the hands or with a vessel, but there should not be the maris ayin that he’s kissing the avodah zarah.
Okay. Until here was honoring avodah zarah, or maris ayin.
Connection to the Story of Chana and Her Seven Sons
Ah, and the officers told him that he should go in. I think that the prohibition is right next to here, because this is even menashek (kissing). He was indeed menashek. True, even more than menashek, he bowed, he bent down, it’s nireh (appears), it’s not the derech avodah. It’s nireh, it could even be hishtachava’ah (prostration), he didn’t actually give worship, but it’s all nireh and honoring.
Halacha 13 (Continued): Conclusion – Maris Ayin of Kissing Avodah Zarah
And maris ayin that he’s kissing avodah zarah. Okay. Until here was honoring avodah zarah or maris ayin of avodah zarah. Ah, and the thirteen types of stumbling blocks, what does it come in here? Make a chapter “Maris Ayin of Avodah Zarah”. Fine, but I see that it goes next to here, because this speaks of even menashek. In other words, true, even nireh of the maris ayin of the avodah. It’s nireh, it could be that even the one who is actually an oved, he wouldn’t have been actually an oved, but it would still have been nireh k’mechubad (appearing as honoring). It would have made an appearance. True, true. But it could be that it’s included… One must better organize the house in general. Okay.
—
Halacha 14: Oseh Avodah Zarah – Making an Avodah Zarah
Further. Now, now we’re going to speak about making avodah zarah. Making, this already stands in the Aseres HaDibros (Ten Commandments). Idols, ah, images. How does one say? Making idols. Not the crude one, the image, right? Not accepting as a god, rather building the physicality of the avodah zarah. It went the physicality.
Oseh avodah zarah l’atzmo, if someone makes avodah zarah, he makes one for himself. One minute, for himself first of all. Afilu asah lo yosar b’yado… What, he buys, you mean? Oseh means to say he buys, he asks someone to make. Avodah p’sulah ovedah, even if he didn’t worship the avodah zarah, lokeh, shene’emar “lo sa’aseh l’cha pesel v’chol temunah”. You shall not make for yourself.
Ha’oseh avodah zarah b’yado la’acherim, even if he made it for a non-Jew, lokeh. Even if he made it for a non-Jew, but he is the one who made it with his hands, even if he doesn’t believe in it, but he did a prohibition of making avodah zarah, shene’emar “v’charesh masecha lo sa’asu lachem”.
Two Prohibitions: “Lo Sa’aseh L’cha” and “Lo Sa’asu Lachem”
There are two prohibitions. “Lo sa’aseh l’cha” means making for yourself. “Lo sa’asu lachem” means making, the essence of making. It’s like this, there are two prohibitions here. One is to buy avodah zarah, to acquire avodah zarah. Then there is to make with the hands is an extra prohibition. To buy is even when not with the hands, and with the hands is even not for oneself.
It comes out, ha’oseh avodah zarah b’yado l’atzmo, he transgressed two prohibitions. Both he made it with the hands, and he made it for himself. There is the prohibition of acquiring for oneself an avodah zarah, and there is a prohibition of making with the hands. When one does both, makes for oneself, one receives lashes twice.
Digression: Similar Halacha by Positive Commandments
This is a similar halacha. Is the mitzvah of the halacha according to the order of the Torah. There is a way of acquiring through buying, and one fulfills the mitzvah, and writing. Even if one writes for someone else, one fulfills the mitzvah. I don’t know, but it’s a matter.
—
Halacha 15: Forbidden to Make Images for Decoration
Yes, says the Rambam, and from this comes out another prohibition. A new prohibition, a new thing already comes in. Besides what we just learned a prohibition of making an avodah zarah, an image that one actually wants to worship, an image that is not for the sake of avodah zarah, an image, a statue. Yes, says the Rambam, asur la’asos tzuros l’noy. One may not make images. The Rambam means that the images that one sometimes worships for avodah zarah, those sorts of images. Yes, he’s going to say exactly what. Yes, he’s going to say exactly what. Yes, afilu she’einah avodah zarah, shene’emar “lo sa’asun iti elohei chesef v’elohei zahav”, klomar tzuros shel kesef v’shel zahav she’hen l’noy. Why? Kedei shelo yit’u bahem hato’im v’yidmu she’hen la’avodah.
Discussion: What Does “Shelo Yit’u Bahem Hato’im” Mean?
The one who will err should not think that it’s avodah zarah. The verse calls them elohei chesef. Yes, elohei, what does that mean? The statue is also called elohei. The thing that one uses for a god, or that is a symbol for a god, or something like that. So this is, “shelo yit’u bahem hato’im” means that they will think that you’re going to worship it, or is it maris ayin? Not clear. It could even also be for a fence from other prohibitions. I think that it’s that once there is the image and other people run after it. Not “shelo yit’u bahem hato’im” that they should err that you’re doing avodah zarah, rather they should err after the festival. But it says “v’yidmu she’hen la’avodah”, not “v’yidmu k’ilu la’avod osah”. From this I think perhaps the second way, that people will think that you are worshipping avodah zarah. I don’t know clearly. Yidmu. Okay, I’m saying, I don’t know. I’m saying that if the whole, if the Rambam says the definition “shelo yit’u bahem”, if it’s in a place where there is no avodah zarah, or the yetzer hara (evil inclination) of avodah zarah is nullified, perhaps it should actually be permitted? I don’t know.
—
Halacha 16: Tzuras Adam (Human Form) – Only Protruding is Forbidden
Okay, which images are forbidden for decoration? Yes. Right? Yes. It’s indeed a halacha. He says, l’fichach, which images may one not make? Tzuras adam bilvad (only human form).
Says the Rambam, l’fichach, one image one may not depict, lo b’etz v’lo b’sid v’lo b’even, tzuras adam. How, shetehei tzurah boltetes (protruding). One may not make a protruding image, k’gon which kind of images? Hatziyur v’hachakikah. What is tziyur? Tziyur means simply painting. What is chakikah? Chakikah means that it’s nothing. One must help me, I don’t remember. It’s protruding, boltetes, shoka’as (sunken). He means something like what was made in a chamber with a palace. The kings had on their palace beautiful things, but not because he worships it there, rather because it’s for beauty. But it’s the picture of how one makes a person, a protruding image. Says the Rambam so, the tzar (maker) is lokeh, he receives lashes. Says the Rambam, this is when one makes a protruding image. But for example a sunken image, or an image of pigments, if one makes with paint, if one painted, k’gon an image of weaving, if one wove, or a sunken image, if one made sunken, one printed in, or an image of embroidery, if one made with merchandise, weaving and hanging, all these are not a protruding image.
Halacha 17: Ring with a Seal – A Practical Application
On this comes out a simple thing. How can one make a ring? Says the Rambam so, taba’as she’yesh aleha chosam shel tzuras adam, if it’s a protruding image, asur l’hanicha. One may not have it, one may not wear it. But mutar lachsom bah, because when one seals it becomes a sunken image. But if it’s a sunken image, mutar l’hanicha, but asur lachsom bah, because when one seals it becomes a protruding image.
So in short, one may not have both. Either you may not have it, or you may not use it. So both one should not make. Because if one has it and doesn’t use it, the other one can use it. I made the tzuras adam, but I didn’t make it with a seal, so it’s true, it’s useless, it’s a disgrace that doesn’t matter. Okay, so I come back.
—
Halacha 18: Dmus Chamah U’Levanah, Kochavim, Mazalos, Malachim (Likeness of Sun and Moon, Stars, Constellations, Angels)
Besides a tzuras adam, which is forbidden only in a manner that is protruding, there is another thing that is forbidden. What is forbidden? “Lo ya’aseh adam tzuras dmus chamah u’levanah, kochavim u’mazalos u’malachim”. Galgalim (spheres) one cannot. One minute, I’ll tell you what this means first. Galgalim is transparent, one cannot make any picture. No, no, no, I have a chiddush (novel interpretation). One also doesn’t mean the picture of the moon. He says so, “shene’emar ‘lo sa’asun iti’, lo sa’asun k’dmus shamshai ha’meshamshin l’fanai ba’marom”. This however is forbidden even al halichah (in any form), even not protruding.
The Rambam’s Chiddush in Peirush HaMishnayos: “Dmus Chamah U’Levanah” Doesn’t Mean the Physical Form
But the world thinks that this means a picture of the sun, which is just a circle. A circle is not, the sun doesn’t look like that, it’s nothing. What they mean is, the Rambam says in Peirush HaMishnayos, what they mean is the images shemedamin hato’im (that the erring ones imagine) that this is what the sun looks like. They mean the pictures from long ago by the ovdei avodah zarah, that they said that the sun looks like a person with such a red face, I know what, and the moon looks like a woman who has long hair, whatever it is. That’s what it means, one may not make, because this is actually images of avodah zarah, which they call “dmus of chamah u’levanah”. “Dmus chamah u’levanah” doesn’t mean how the sun actually looks, rather how the ovdei avodah zarah fantasize about the chamah u’levanah. So says the Rambam in Peirush HaMishnayos, and so is certainly the halacha.
Discussion: The Ra’avad Didn’t Understand This Chiddush
The Ra’avad argues that he didn’t understand the simple meaning. From where do you know that he didn’t understand the simple meaning? The Ra’avad argues on him. Yes, good, the Ra’avad says that the Rambam forbade this even protruding, and he doesn’t agree. Okay, we won’t go into the halacha l’ma’aseh (practical law).
The Ra’avad says “tzuros habehemos u’she’ar nefesh chayah”. This is not the Ra’avad, this is the Rambam. How do you see that the Ra’avad meant literally that? Because he didn’t have the problem. He asks, from where does it come? In the Gemara he didn’t understand the “k’dmus shamshai”? I don’t know.
—
Halacha 19: Tzuros Behemos, Ilanos, Deshayim (Images of Animals, Trees, Grasses) – Permitted Even Protruding
The Rambam goes further, “tzuros habehemos u’she’ar nefesh chayah chutz min ha’adam”. Or tzuros ilanos u’deshayim v’chayotza bahen, this is with images, and this one may yes. And some are even permitted for a protruding image. But this is no longer any miracles.
Is this the shitas haRambam (Rambam’s opinion)? Are there other opinions? What does it say there below? What is there in Shulchan Aruch? What may one make?
Summary: The Three Categories of Images
Or the psak (ruling), let’s take the psak, according to how the Rambam comes out, it seems to me like this:
– A human one may not make specifically protruding. A human sunken, or a human just a picture on the wall, one may.
– A chamah levanah one may not, even not sunken, even flat.
– And an animal one may even protruding.
So this is simply, I mean it’s not a chiddush. Only a human one may not protruding. So one may make statues of cows, of oxen, of anything, just not of a person. Or another thing that one may not is dmus hashamashim, one may not even if it’s not protruding.
So this is the shitas haRambam. What is the halacha that stands differently in Shulchan Aruch? I haven’t seen that one should bring properly. Okay. Nice. I think, all those lessons that used to be pictures of lions and such things, according to the Rambam it seems that one may. Yup. Okay. It must be that there are perhaps other poskim who don’t hold of this, because I see… I mean I remember that one is not happy with it. Okay.