Laws of Idolatry Chapter 7 (Auto Translated)

Chapter 7 of the Laws of Idolatry: The Commandment to Destroy Idolatry, the Prohibition of Benefit, and Distinctions Between the Land of Israel and Outside the Land

Introduction: Structure of the Laws of Idolatry

Speaker 1: We are learning Chapter 7 of the Laws of Idolatry. We have already learned the essence of idolatry, and after that we learned about sorcery, and the last thing we learned was things that have the statutes of the nations regarding idolatry, such as making a certain stone or a certain monument or a certain tree, which is similar to what the gentiles do.

Now in Chapter 7 we will learn the mitzvah of destroying idolatry, that one should break idolatry, that one should ensure that the Jews who live in the Land of Israel should not have any idolatry. And also practically from this, it is very relevant when one learns about idolatry, because one goes to break the idolatry. Practically from this comes out all kinds of things regarding benefit from idolatry, because one may not have benefit from the things of idolatry, and it becomes more like Yoreh Deah, almost halachos in this matter.

Interestingly, I think there were fifty-something, fifty-one mitzvos, forty-nine were negative commandments, because everything is that one should not do, and these are the two mitzvos that one should actually do, to destroy idolatry.

Law 1: The Positive Commandment to Destroy Idolatry and Its Accessories

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, “It is a positive commandment to destroy idolatry and its accessories.” One should destroy the accessories, those that serve the idolatry.

The people? Or the… I don’t know, it says that the sorcerers, they gave them the punishment that is appropriate for them. The gentiles should be expelled. I think it means the accessory means like the platform or the vessels perhaps.

Speaker 2: Who?

Speaker 1: He says so, “Vessels are accessories of idolatry, and everything made for it.” Vessels, he says explicitly.

Speaker 2: Yes, a person one doesn’t say destroy, a person one says to expel or I don’t know to kill.

Speaker 1: “And everything made for it,” everything that was built for the idolatry, “as it says ‘You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations served.'”

Speaker 2: Yes, something like that is the language further in the verse.

Speaker 1: “‘You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations served.'” Yes, so it says further, “‘For thus shall you do to them, their altars you shall break down,'” one should break their altars, which on these altars is presumably the accessories, yes? “‘And their monuments you shall smash and their asherahs you shall cut down.'” These are the things, the monuments and the asherahs are the accessories of the idolatry, which makes it so that one should see that here there is a house of idolatry.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: Yes Rambam, this is a positive commandment on every Jew throughout all generations.

Speaker 2: Yes, but there is a distinction.

Distinction Between the Land of Israel and Outside the Land

Speaker 1: How is the mitzvah? So, in the Land of Israel the mitzvah is “to pursue them,” to search where there is idolatry, “until you destroy it from all your land,” until one can destroy idolatry from the entire land. So when Jews go up to the Land of Israel, one must send them to search where there is idolatry and destroy it.

But outside the Land, “we are not commanded to pursue them.” Outside the Land one is not commanded. He doesn’t say because one cannot, he says the mitzvah is not incumbent to pursue it. Not because it is not conquered, we’re talking about if you know that this is a place of idolatry, must you go seek it out.

Speaker 2: Ah, what is the word?

Speaker 1: Yes, because he will say, he’s talking even in a… Yes, let’s see. “Rather, every place that is conquered,” a place outside the Land that we have conquered. Conquered means that it became a place where Jews have settled…

What does conquered mean? It means that there is a government, or a place where Jews have the power, the local power? There it would be a mitzvah. That’s what conquered means.

Speaker 2: What is the question?

Speaker 1: Kiryas Joel is not a Jewish government, it’s a gentile state, just Jews work there. But a place that was conquered, I think it means a conquest by an individual, such a thing that is truly a conquest.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 1: “Rather every place that is conquered,” yes, if one has the right to the place, I don’t know what it means. Let’s say the village, if a village has the legal right to be able to destroy idolatry, perhaps that’s called enough conquest for this matter. I don’t believe so. I don’t know the word what it means a Jewish land. The word is I want one can.

Speaker 2: No, no, it is yes. It’s a place where you live, a place that you own, or where you have the power. Idolatry of gentiles and the like, if one is only clarifying outside the Land.

Discussion: Understanding “Conquered” and “To Pursue Them”

Speaker 1: But the Rambam says, yes, look, let’s see. “That is conquered, every place that is conquered, we destroy every idolatry that is in it, as it says ‘and you shall destroy their name from that place.'” So we learn from this: in the Land of Israel one is commanded to pursue them, and one is commanded to pursue them outside the Land. “‘From that place'” is “‘and you shall destroy their name,'” one must pursue it. Outside the Land is only… He already says, only when it is already… There came here a distinction, because he says, there came here a great distinction, because he says, that in the Land of Israel, even when it is not yet conquered, yes, it’s a contradiction.

So it sounds here. What is not reasonable? That is, perhaps one must go conquer in order that we should be able to do? It says that if you cannot, you cannot. But so it sounds.

Speaker 2: Yes, so it sounds.

Speaker 1: The simple meaning is that one sends a campaign, one sends a messenger, one goes and searches for idolatry where one can, even if it looks a bit…

That in the Land of Israel one must search, perhaps one should make for this itself a war for the Land of Israel. If you have a territory in the Land of Israel where gentiles still have there a power to be able to make idolatry, one must go conquer. And outside the Land there is no mitzvah to conquer, but if one has conquered, one should… So it states, outside the Land, after one has conquered, one must indeed seek out in the entire territory that is not occupied. What is there is there. That is another question, how much one must make a search, I don’t know. But what it says “to pursue its worshippers” means to say that so it sounds here, as if you are not in control even, even if you are not in control, you should go, perhaps one must conquer, or perhaps one can without conquering, I don’t know.

Speaker 2: Aha.

Speaker 1: It looks like, that in the Land of Israel, even if this is not yet conquered, if this is not yet conquered, there is no mitzvah that you should conquer. There is no mitzvah to conquer the Land of Israel itself without the part of idolatry. An extra mitzvah perhaps. Now we’re talking about the mitzvah of pursuing. You have a mitzvah of pursuing even in the place that is not under your hands, you should do everything you can that you should indeed be able to destroy idolatry. Which is not so outside the Land, if Jews have a territory that they have conquered, they must uproot what is there of idolatry, but they don’t need to go search for idolatry.

Speaker 2: Very good. Show me further.

Speaker 1: So it sounds. It’s actually not clear, the Gemara there says something in different language, but okay. That’s what it says here.

Law 2: The Prohibition of Benefit from Idolatry and Its Accessories

Speaker 1: Idolatry itself, so, until here goes the mitzvah of destroying. Now one will learn from which things, the things that belong to the idolatry, how serious it is. Prohibition of benefit it is, a law, connected with this. This is a matter that one must drag into the chapters, what prohibition of benefit we understand. It has to do with the mitzvah of destroying, but it is essentially another such prohibition. Not every thing that is prohibited in benefit is there also a mitzvah to destroy. Chametz is such a thing, but other things there is no…

Speaker 2: Yes?

Speaker 1: It’s two different things. The things that one must destroy is not what is prohibited in benefit, that is another topic. But now…

We are learning about the prohibition of benefit from idolatry. The Rambam says: “Idolatry itself,” the idolatry itself, “and its accessories,” the things that were built for it, “and its offerings,” the things that one offers to it, the gifts that one gives to idolatry, “and everything made for it,” everything that one does for it, “are prohibited in benefit, as it says ‘and you shall not bring an abomination into your house.'” The simple meaning is, as he means, don’t bring in idolatry into your house, which means any abomination, any thing that was offered to idolatry, that you should not have benefit from it.

Two Sets of Lashes for Benefit from Idolatry

The Rambam says, “And anyone who benefits from any of these,” one who indeed has benefit from the idolatry or the offerings etc., “receives lashes twice, once for ‘and you shall not bring an abomination into your house,’ and once for ‘and nothing of the banned thing shall cling to your hand.'” Usually one would say that these are two of the same prohibitions, but he sees that the Rambam holds that these are two different prohibitions, because he receives lashes twice.

Why actually? So it says in the Gemara, this is all built on the Gemara. Usually in the Rambam this is built on learning Gemara. There is no logic why there are things that have two prohibitions on one thing. There are those who disagree, he brings that the Ramban in Sefer HaMitzvos disagrees with this law. But…

Law 3: An Animal That Was Offered to Idolatry

Speaker 1: The Rambam continues: “What is the law of animals that were offered to idolatry?” What happens with an animal that was offered to idolatry? “All of it is forbidden, even its dung and its bones and its horns and its hooves and its hide.” Even the parts of the animal that are invalid are also prohibited in benefit. Because, I guess, with the entire animal, even the part that was not offered, but the entire animal, once it was consecrated to the idolatry, or once a part of the animal was offered to the idolatry, it is forbidden.

“Therefore, if there was a hide with a sign that is known by it that it is an offering of idolatry,” a person finds a piece of hide from an animal, and there is on it a sign that the animal from which the hide was found was an animal that was offered to idolatry, “such as they would make round holes opposite the heart with the sign of the heart,” the way one would offer to idolatry was that one would make a round hole opposite the heart, and one would remove the heart. “Behold all those hides that are seen thus are prohibited in benefit.” All hides that one finds that look like this, it is clear that the hide is remnants from idolatry, and it is forbidden. “And so all similar to this.”

The point is, since it is not only the animal itself, it is also even the hide, it is also even the waste in the street in general, you pick up such a hide with this sign, it is to know that it is idolatry or one may not have benefit from it.

Law 4: Distinction Between Idolatry of a Gentile and of a Jew

Speaker 1: Already. The Rambam, another law. There is a distinction in law between idolatry of a gentile and idolatry of a Jew. The Rambam says, “What is the difference between idolatry of a gentile and idolatry of a Jew?” He says so, “Idolatry of a non-Jew is prohibited in benefit immediately.” Idolatry that a gentile made, from when it was made, one cast a stone or a metal figurine, it becomes forbidden. The Rambam says why? “As it says ‘the graven images of their gods you shall burn with fire.'” He says, we learn, “when one carved it,” from when one made it into a carving, from when one formed it and one made from it a statue, “it became a god,” it becomes idolatry, it becomes an idol.

“But of a Jew it is not prohibited in benefit until one worships it.” Idolatry of a Jew only becomes prohibited in benefit after one serves it. “As it says ‘and places in secret,'” what does it say? “Until one does for it things in secret which are its worship.”

Discussion: Why “In Secret”?

Speaker 1: It’s interesting, why did they hide the idolatry? Why did they hide it? Why did they hide it in the house?

Speaker 2: Aha, no, he lives in a Jewish land, therefore he hid it, he is afraid of the court.

Speaker 1: Apparently it looks like mere thought causes idolatry, and a Jew has an evil thought, one buys a statue, or he makes a statue, or he takes a thing, is this is in this, is this not…

That is, there is not here the law of idolatry itself, the statue itself, the object of worship. The thing that is idolatry, “of a gentile and of a Jew they are not forbidden until they use them for idolatry.” No, it has no… That is, there is no consecration to idolatry, right? It has no… You cannot consecrate a thing to idolatry, you must actually use it.

It’s very interesting, because it comes out for example that a monument or a pavement stone or a tree is only forbidden after one has worshipped. But one may not build it. It’s a different prohibition. The building is a neutral thing. But one may not build for idolatry. Even for the sake of Heaven? Yes, not to do. The building is a prohibition of benefit, that you use it to serve idolatry and the like.

One Who Makes Idolatry for Others — Wages

The Rambam continues, “One who makes gifts for idolatry, behold he receives lashes.” What happens when one makes? The Rambam forbids idolatry for others. One may not… One receives lashes for it. Yes, that is in a main page he places, or for a second one may also not. So even he receives lashes, even he receives lashes, but that is not the benefit from idolatry that is forbidden. Wages, wages. The money that he receives from it. No, that is not benefit. The money from it is not benefit from idolatry. Benefit from idolatry means having benefit from the offerings or from… It doesn’t mean the benefit from the money because he made idolatry. The wages are permitted.

Question: Why Are Wages Permitted Even by Idolatry of a Gentile?

This is even idolatry of a gentile is forbidden, and not only because one made it for a Jew you can say that because one made it it is not yet idolatry. But even one made it for a gentile, it becomes immediately when one makes it becomes idolatry. So why? Why? Why? Yet wages are permitted.

The Rambam says why? “Because it is not forbidden until it is completed.” The idolatry only becomes forbidden when it is finished, when it becomes a fully made statue. And “the blow” – how does one say this word? Blow? I don’t know. Blow? The last blow, the last blow, “the last blow with which one completes it. A perutah.” The last blow is not worth a perutah.

“There Is No Benefit Except at the End”

I remember a bit from the sugya of there is no benefit except at the end. It’s an interesting leniency. Regarding the money you make on the hack. When you hack it’s not yet a figurine. When does it become a figurine? The last second. The last second it is nothing. I don’t know, I don’t know what is the sort of this leniency. Many commentators say that there is no benefit. But let’s say it’s very expensive, and one can say that each blow comes out money, perhaps yes? The last blow means the last small how much it is less money, which that is calculated. I don’t know. A funny piece of Torah. There is presumably here some leeway that the sage that the master makes, that he says such Torah.

Acquiring Idolatry by Mistake — Junk Business

But I tell you further, in the junk business, he buys off a bunch of broken pieces of things from gentiles, and found among them idolatry. So, “if he gave money but did not pull,” if he gave money but he did not make meshicha on the entire thing or specifically on the idolatry, then “he should return it to the gentile,” it should go back to the gentile. Because if he already pulled it, it is already the Jew’s, he must destroy it, he has a mitzvah to destroy the idolatry.

Discussion: Destroying Idolatry in the Land of Israel

English Translation

Speaker 1: Yes, the law regarding a non-Jew… we’re presumably talking here about outside the Land of Israel, no? Because in the Land of Israel, can you now fulfill the mitzvah of destroying idolatry? Because does it give you the power to destroy it? It’s not clear here. It has to do with many things regarding acquisitions. In practice, it’s not yet his, the wisdom is that he can return it, yachzir el hagoy (return it to the non-Jew). But here we’re talking about wanting to… But I say in the Land of Israel, there is a law to destroy idolatry. It’s not yet… destroying idolatry doesn’t mean benefit…

Speaker 2: No, no, you’re confusing benefit from idolatry with destroying idolatry. He found a piece of idolatry, there’s no mitzvah to burn it. It’s not dear to me. It’s a mitzvah te’abdun (you shall destroy). It’s an external prohibition, by the way, lo yera’eh lecha chametz, lo yera’eh lecha se’or (no chametz shall be seen with you, no leaven shall be seen with you), a difference between chametz and idolatry. We’re not talking about the mitzvah of breaking down the church, but it doesn’t mean breaking the small piece of idol. It doesn’t say that the mitzvah, that when one burns idolatry that one has, one violates the prohibition of benefit. It’s a prohibition of benefit. We’re not talking about the mitzvah, the mitzvah to destroy idolatry. We’re talking about the prohibition of benefit. We’re never talking about that mitzvah.

Speaker 1: Apparently, if only what you’re saying, that also means destroying idolatry. Every time a person finds some kind of idol, it’s a mitzvah to destroy idolatry. Now it’s the only thing that is actually worshipped, something like that, not just anything.

Speaker 2: That’s only a prohibition of benefit. That’s what we’re trying to interpret. We’re starting to play such legal games.

Kinyan Bita’ut (Mistaken Acquisition) — The Details

When the first piece is permitted, it’s said that there is indeed a fine point. Because he made a meshichah (pulling), but he didn’t give any money. Even not a meshichah begoy kohen (pulling with a non-Jewish priest), a regular meshichah doesn’t help for a non-Jew. Because we had to be concerned that he had now acquired the idolatry. But we say no, he didn’t acquire the idolatry now. Kinyan bita’ut (mistaken acquisition), because he didn’t know that there was idolatry there. Something like that is the answer.

Speaker 1: The answer is only when he didn’t see. But as Rabbi Meir makes meshichah, he knows what’s lying there, so he acquired it.

Speaker 2: For a Jew there’s no difference, even if he doesn’t know. The novelty regarding idolatry is, even if he doesn’t know, he wouldn’t have bought it. He acquires, he didn’t say anything. The novelty is even, meshichah means that he pulled the large container, not the specific idolatry.

Speaker 1: Yes, a difference.

Speaker 2: He made the legal novelty. As long as he didn’t make a complete kinyan (acquisition), there’s just kinyan kesef (acquisition with money), there’s kinyan meshichah. One works for a Jew, one works for a non-Jew. There are many details in the tractate, let’s not go into the clarity. Since he didn’t make a proper kinyan, because both kinyanim (acquisitions) are not yet complete, he can return it.

If he didn’t make any meshichah at all, only kesef, and kesef doesn’t acquire by a non-Jew, he can return it entirely. Even if he only made, yes, he only made meshichah, didn’t give the money, we say it’s kinyan bita’ut, because since he didn’t make a proper kinyan, because both kinyanim are not yet complete, he can return it.

There’s a question what the word kinyan bita’ut means. One could have said kinyan bita’ut also applies to meshichah mida’at (pulling with knowledge).

Right, it’s not that it looks like there’s a difference, there’s something in between, I don’t know exactly what actually, yes, it’s not a clear thing. But that’s the law.

Yolich Leyam Hamelach (Cast into the Dead Sea)

If he already made all the kinyanim, then “yolich leyam hamelach” (cast it into the Dead Sea). “Yolich leyam hamelach” is always the symbol of destroying it, of making it so that one shouldn’t have any benefit, not selling, not having benefit, but throwing it into the Dead Sea.

Yerushah (Inheritance) from a Non-Jew — A Convert and Non-Jew Dividing

Okay. The Rambam says, “And so a non-Jew who died and left an inheritance, and he has a non-Jewish son and a convert son, and the non-Jew doesn’t inherit from his non-Jewish father”. A non-Jew or a convert. No, a non-Jew and a convert. There was a non-Jew, an old non-Jew died, he had two children, a Jew and a non-Jew. He divides before the idolatry. The non-Jew died and has a non-Jewish son and a convert son. “The convert can say to the non-Jew, you take the idolatry and I’ll take the money, you take the yayin nesech (wine used for libations) and I’ll take the fruits”. Why? Because we don’t say he had benefit, he did have benefit, he received money instead of it. The point is he divides beforehand, he divides before the disclosure of intent, he makes a deal with his brother that he shouldn’t receive the idolatry lechatchilah (initially), but that he may do. “But if this inheritance came to him after he converted, if this inheritance came to him after he converted”, if the convert first converted and afterwards he now goes to divide it, that’s forbidden, because that means as if he sold idolatry, he received money for it, he already had benefit from idolatry.

Discussion: Inheritance of a Convert

Speaker 1: Very good. Interesting, conversion is indeed like not oleh dam (blood doesn’t rise), but he still continues to receive inheritance from the father, because the non-Jew doesn’t go from that.

Speaker 2: The Rambam says further… the law is that biblically he doesn’t inherit, but rabbinically he inherits. That’s the law. Even if he’s not established that he wants to become a non-Jew again.

Tzurot She’osin Oten Hagoyim (Forms that the Non-Jews Make) — Which Form is Forbidden

The Rambam says further, “Forms that are forbidden for non-Jews to make for us”. Forms that are made for decoration.

Seder Ha’inyanim (Order of Topics) — What Have We Learned Until Now

Okay, now a new law. But until now we’ve learned, let’s make a bit of order, so we know what’s going on here. We learned general principles of idolatry, which is forbidden, when it becomes forbidden, and the like. After that we learned several laws about how one nullifies idolatry, how it comes into one’s possession, acquisitions of idolatry. Perhaps taking what is not yet his, or the object that he took is before it became forbidden and the like, taking what one may because he didn’t make an acquisition and it wasn’t his, such things.

Now it’s going to learn a new question: “Which forms are forbidden?” Not every form that a non-Jew has is idolatry. One needs to know which form one may not benefit from. We’re going to learn various laws about which forms are forbidden. Right?

Speaker 1: Yes, yes, yes.

Speaker 2: It’s going to say the general principle, and on that it’s going to say details. Yes?

Speaker 1: Yes, yes.

The General Principle: Forms for Decoration vs. Forms for Worship

So first the general principle is, forms that they make… yes? If a non-Jew makes. A Jew, a Jew we don’t talk about, a Jew may not make even any forms, except certain forms that we learned earlier. But a non-Jew makes tzurot she’osin oten hagoyim (forms that the non-Jews make), the non-Jews make forms of their foolishness, of people, of animals. Yes. Plain forms means forms that are forms of idolatry. Not just any forms.

We’re not talking now about the forms that one may not make because of a decree, like the law that a Jew may not make a form of a person, even just of a person, of you. We’re talking tzurot she’osin oten hagoyim, meaning a form of idolatry. It looks like that idol, baal. But it’s not worshipped. Wonderful, sometimes he makes a form leshem avodah (for worship), for serving, sometimes he makes a form leshem sheinkait (for beauty). The same form, it looks exactly the same. But if he makes it just for beauty, not to worship, it’s permitted. Yes?

Speaker 1: Yes, yes.

Forms made for worship are forbidden. That means, even the same form must be made for worship, if not it’s not forbidden in benefit.

Keitzad (How) — Signs to Recognize

Now we’re going to learn “keitzad?” Keitzad apparently doesn’t mean like heichi timtza (how would you find), how does one know that it’s a… yes, not all keitzads are like that, here it is like this. So it is: All forms found in villages are forbidden in benefit, with the presumption that they are made for worship. In a village, a small town, they don’t make any beauty there. A village is like a hundred people, that’s what they called it in our drashos (sermons). In a small town, perhaps also the people there are very pious, they don’t make fancy things, they don’t spend on beauty, they don’t spend on beauty there. It’s not their place, they live more simply, they have simple houses and little houses there.

Speaker 1: Right, so there are no consequences there to sell the thing.

Speaker 2: But in a city, it changes.

Speaker 1: In the city there’s also what is alone, but I’ll give you a sign.

Speaker 2: The sign looks like a very specific thing for a certain context, but he gives a sign, yes?

Speaker 1: Yes, so, so.

Forms at the City Gate — Signs of Idolatry

They don’t make just empty things. There’s no connection. There’s just no connection there. It’s not their place. It’s not their place.

But even in a town, which needs simpler houses, it holds in one corner. Right, there’s no connection to beauty there. Simplicity is that this is for worship.

But in a city, yes, it changes. And in the city there’s also what is for worship, but he’ll give you a sign. The sign looks like a very specific thing for a certain context, but he gives a sign, yes? Yes, so there is.

If the form stands at the city gate at the door, and in his hand he has a staff, or a bird, or a ball, or a sword, or a crown and ring, then its presumption is that it was made for worship and is forbidden in benefit.

Apparently this was in some period, I don’t know when, the custom that what was taken seriously as a form for worship had one of these… in his hand he held something, apparently.

And if not, it has the presumption of decoration and is permitted.

All are very normal symbols, one can understand. The form of a king is a leader, and a bird is he rules over the world, or the ball holds the world. I mean so in tractate Avodah Zarah it says so, what is idolatry? He holds the world. Something. And a sword is idolatry that is mighty and a man of war, and a crown is obvious.

Yes, the simplicity is good, but technically one can make all these forms for decoration too. In sum, when he has these things, there’s a presumption. That’s the presumption. When we know for certain, these are all presumptions. This is only what we assume. And if not, there’s a presumption that it’s for decoration and permitted.

Okay. Now, one could have said that everything should be doubtful prohibition, yes? Doubtful prohibition. But we say a presumption that these things, when it’s not these things, it’s for decoration.

Tzlamim Hanimtza’im (Found Forms) — Found Forms

Let’s go further. “Forms that are found are cast”. Tzlamim means the same thing, yes? Form? Yes, he says, he talks about the fact that the Rambam usually switched. In the Mishnah it says on everything tzlamim, certain things it says tzurot, which apparently means that this is the same thing.

“Forms that are found cast and sunk in the junk”, that were found broken in the junk yard, yes? “Garbage heap”, it was found in a pile. “And they don’t need to be nullified”, why? Because we say that idolatry has no natural place in junk.

Question: Contradiction Between Junk from an Individual and Plain Idolatry

But why earlier when we learned that one buys junk from an individual non-Jew, yes? If it’s plain, cast usually he had nullified. What is cast? Cast usually he had nullified, that’s what he means.

But, one who finds idolatry on the road, these are forbidden, and if it was of metal, cast it into the Dead Sea. So there’s a contradiction.

So the answer is this, that when we talk about an individual non-Jew, there’s a presumption that he nullified it. But when we talk about just idolatry that one finds, there’s no presumption that it was nullified.

Hamotzei Kelim Im Tzurot (One Who Finds Vessels with Forms) — Vessels with Forms of Sun, Moon, Dragon

And the Rambam says further, One who finds vessels and on them a form of the sun and moon or dragon, casts them into the Dead Sea. Such as silver and gold vessels, scarlet garments, or rings.

So further the same question, is the simple meaning that it’s a form for decoration, or it’s for worship? Scarlet garments is crimson dye, yes, red garments. Idolaters go with red garments.

Or it was engraved on the earring and on the ring, the forms were engraved, it’s proof that they are for worship. Because on the important vessels, if it’s silver and gold, scarlet garments, it’s for worship. Their presumption is for worship, not their presumption for decoration.

Therefore other forms found on all vessels, which are not forms of sun and moon and dragon, their presumption is for decoration and are permitted.

Novelty: Even a Non-Jew Can Make Forms for Decoration

The Rambam says further, “mixture of idolatry”. Until now we’ve learned, the last few laws were questions if it’s for decoration or for worship. We see a novelty, an important thing, that even a non-Jew can sometimes make a form for decoration, certainly it’s permitted. Even a Jew may not, but it doesn’t become idolatry because of that. If he makes even a form of idolatry, if we know that there’s an assessment that he makes it for decoration, it’s permitted.

Ta’arovet Avodah Zarah (Mixture of Idolatry)

And now we’re going to learn a new detail in the laws of idolatry, which is mixture of idolatry.

“Idolatry and all its offerings forbid in any amount. How so? Idolatry that was mixed with forms of laymen, forbids them all. And so if it was mixed with camels, forbids them all, because each and every one of them is fit to be idolatry by itself.” Yoel chok limot hamelech (statute for the days of the king).

It’s an interesting kind of mixture, that it’s still simple that perhaps there is idolatry. A regular mixture means that it’s mixed in. Ah, it’s possible. Very good, we don’t know which, but that’s the word. That it’s still the word.

Because a piece among many pieces, and so kosher mixed with idolatry in several cups, or a piece of meat that entered the treasury of idolatry among several pieces, yoel chok limot hamelech, mixture of idolatry forbids everything.

And so a dressed hide, hide… dressed hide, the hide that made a hole, a hole with the hole of the hair, dressed hides, yes. Because it’s a sign that the shearing among hides, because idolaters in order. Very good. Meaning when it has any of the signs. What does it mean? Because how do we know it became forbidden? It’s clear, isn’t it with that piece of hide, and so many large. And yoel. Let me explain umicher ovdei zarah (and sells idolaters) ekad mi meshamsha od (still serves) ekruvot shelo (its offerings not).

Demei Avodah Zarah (Money from Idolatry) — Money from Idolatry

A person worked on the ten that one may not benefit from idolatry. Yes, buys. Harei hadam vena’asirah hana’ah (behold the blood and forbidden in benefit), ve’osron mikol shem ke’avodah zarah (and forbidden from all value like idolatry). The monetary value from idolatry, and the same blood as idolatry forbids mixture from all value, also the money forbids is the mixture from all value, status, the money has mixed all money that all his money is forbidden there’s no difference like.

Status, the explanation is all from idolatry, monitored mixture, ta’arovet ve’itraei hara kemo’atz (mixture and its evil residue like), is like idolatry itself that everything from it becomes forbidden.

Efer (Ashes) of Idolatry

So the name is ba’atar, but the idolatry is already nisrafa (burned), truth became upon a burn. So ashes is forbidden in benefit. The ashes means not like mixture or something. It’s already a new thing.

Excuse me. Ashes is also forbidden in benefit. Why are the ashes also forbidden in benefit? It means an offering… what then that means still everything idolatry, that it’s the ashes of idolatry.

All… a regular burned from its ashes is permitted, we say that the ashes are from idolatry. Except, as it is by Pharaoh, perhaps also a stringency of idolatry. Perhaps also a stringency of idolatry, because it’s a stringency of idolatry. Part of the stringency. Idolatry is terrible, one must be very very careful.

Difference Between Coals and Flame

Coals of idolatry are also forbidden, because it still burns, there’s still substance, but a flame, the flame itself, flame is not a tangible thing, it burns on the coals, it burns on the thing of idolatry, but the flame itself is a normal thing, one may not benefit from it, it has no substance.

Safek Avodah Zarah (Doubtful Idolatry) — Doubt and Double Doubt

Very good. Further, the Rambam says, doubtful idolatry… ah, now we’re going to learn doubt. The books have learned mixtures. Mixtures means that one uses both, that’s the difference. Doubt means that you use only one of them.

Very good. Doubtful idolatry is forbidden, but double doubt is yes permitted. Let’s already see what it means.

The Rambam says, A cup of idolatry that fell into a treasury full of cups, all are forbidden, because every idolatry because so many people worshipped it, so every cup, you’re afraid that perhaps that’s the idolatry.

But if one cup separated from the mixture, once it has already left the first place where it got mixed, and fell into a second set of cups, it fell into another place of cups, these are permitted, because the second is already a sfek sfeika. That is, the doubt is in two different… the point is the doubt is in the first place, and the doubt is already in the second place.

Discussion: How Does Sfek Sfeika Work?

Interesting how this becomes a sfek sfeika exactly. What is the doubt? Whether the cup was actually the thing that is forbidden? Yes, but that’s not understood, because not all became an issur itself, each one became an issur out of doubt.

Right, but this is like statistically you’re making a calculation. True, doubt doesn’t work with statistics. But how did the doubt happen, and what is the second place of the doubt?

Ring of Idolatry – Talya (Suspension)

A ring of idolatry that got mixed with a hundred rings, and two of them fell into the great sea, all are permitted. Ah, here is a new chiddush, that if from the hundred rings specifically two fell in? Or is it an example?

All are permitted, for I say that ring was among the two that fell, so the ring was one of the two that fell into the sea, therefore it is now permitted.

But what is the matter specifically of two? Why must it be one of two? I don’t know. To such an extent, this is a talya, right? This is called teluyot, we learned it in the laws of mixtures. It’s not exactly the same thing as bittul, it’s called talya. We say that the…

Why must it be two? I don’t know why it must be two. If I knew, I would tell you. If I knew, I would tell you. I have no idea. Must I know everything?

Okay, not so clear. Here he says that only one is needed. And why does the Rambam say two? Does he say this is a Gemara? Stop a minute. They hold thirteen fell into the Jordan.

So, this is mixtures. Doubt, let’s just say it clearly. Doubt is permitted. Doubt of doubt is forbidden. Doubt of doubt is permitted.

Afterwards there is a leniency if it fell into the sea. They tell us that it fell into the sea. What if… the reason is such, it could be that it’s a positivity, that we think things happen for the good in the end. But the idolatry belongs in the sea, so it must be destroyed. Now it has fallen. In practice, there is a concept of being lenient with doubt for the good, so this is a talya, yes. It’s a talya, yes. And this works in water.

Majority and Minority in Sfek Sfeika

What if, yes, a ring of idolatry mixed with a hundred rings, yes? And forty went to one place and sixty to another place, yes? And the entire forty fell into another. That is, initially forty are in one place and sixty in one place, so what? It’s a majority and a minority.

He said, ah, wait, if it falls into a hundred all hundred are permitted, do you want here all hundred should be forbidden? But here is the second level when there is a sfek sfeika, right? From those forty that fell in, the others are all permitted. Ani omer, except for teviat ayin, the majority is like in the sixty.

And here we do follow the majority, at the second level. Afterwards it’s one of sfek sfeika, but the second one can be said sfek sfeika.

Also it goes to be lenient.

Continuation: Nullification in Majority – Sfek Sfeika

Speaker 1: It’s also a majority. With you with many permitted items, what falls into a hundred, all hundred are permitted. Would you say that here also all hundred are permitted?

But at the second level, when it’s a sfek sfeika, but the second one can be said that there’s also a bit less, but the Shach says after the Shach that the issur was nullified initially it’s permitted, because according to the law we follow the majority, we say that it fell among the majority. It went into the greater majority, as it’s even more the greater majority. There are no doubts at all, if there’s a halachic question, one must bring a rav, because it’s very complicated. But these are the rules that the Rambam said. Now you can learn from ashera.

Halacha 14: Ashera – Prohibition of Benefit from Its Shade

The Rambam’s Language

Ashera, whether it was worshipped or whether idolatry was placed beneath it – it is forbidden to sit in the shade of its trunk, but it is permitted to sit in the shade of its branches and leaves. And if he has another path – it is forbidden for him to pass beneath it, and if there is no other path there – he passes beneath it while running.

Explanation of the Law

Speaker 1: Ashera whether they worship it, an ashera was idolatry. Whether idolatry was placed beneath it, it was a servant for idolatry. It is forbidden to sit in its shade, one may not sit under the trunk of the ashera. But if its shade spreads over others, under the leaves one may. Interesting. Because the ashera only takes up, the prohibition of ashera is only as much as its trunk, the trunk.

Speaker 2: Koma means literally the middle part of the tree?

Speaker 1: One may. Why? The shade of the shade, something like that, it’s not in the shade of the trunk. The main purpose of the ashera was the tall tree, that people should see it, but not so much the branches.

Speaker 2: I would have thought that the ashera was made to make shade for the idolatry. Seems not.

Speaker 1: No, there it was written that it was to invite the public.

Speaker 2: Yes, so you’re right.

Discussion: Another Path – Sitting vs. Passing

Speaker 1: And another thing, if he has another path, that is, when one has no other choice, one may sit. Yes, if one has another path, one may not even pass through.

Speaker 2: Why may one sit, but one may not pass through? Actually funny.

Speaker 1: Perhaps he means not beneath it beneath its trunk. Beneath means apparently beneath the trunk itself, the part that sticks out from the side. Perhaps apparently we may even pass through, but certainly if we may sit, we may certainly pass through. So he actually learns it that way, he doesn’t mean specifically beneath its shade, but that if one may even sit, the lower under the shadow of the trunk of the tree.

From Which Path Should He Go – The Law of Running

Speaker 1: And from which path should he go? He should immediately exit outside, he should quickly go through without benefit from the shade. Give a run. Here there are sometimes things that one runs through, we until before.

Speaker 2: No, apparently the point is because he has a certain benefit that the tree makes shade, but when he runs through he doesn’t have the benefit.

Speaker 1: Okay, he found himself on the other side through. This is actually yes, that he is a transgressor, he is a transgressor, but he has now less. He has no other path, but if he has another path you see that he may not. Many runs. Running is only a permission if he has no choice, but initially it’s such a thing called lo yeshev, such a thing. Lo yeshev, he may not be there.

Halacha 15: Chicks That Nested in the Ashera

The Rambam’s Language

Chicks that nested in it and don’t need their mother – are permitted. And the eggs and chicks that need their mother – are forbidden, for the ashera is like a base for them. And the nest itself that is at its top – is permitted, because the bird brings its wood from another place.

Explanation of the Law

Speaker 1: Further, chicks that nested in it, birds that made nests on the ashera, on the idolatry tree. So, if the birds don’t need their mother, they are already big birds, yes, they no longer need to sleep in the sukkah, because they are no longer dependent on the ashera, because they are already birds, they are already independent.

Speaker 2: Ah, because they are independent.

Speaker 1: Chicks that need their mother are forbidden, for they see the ashera as a base for them. But the nest itself. Yes, the nest at its top is permitted, for the bird brings wood from another place. The bird is clever, it won’t break the house where it lives, it will break other trees and bring it to the tree where it makes its nest.

Halacha 16: Wood from Ashera – Oven and Bread

The Rambam’s Language

He took wood from it – they are forbidden in benefit. He heated the oven with them – it must be cooled, and afterwards he should heat it with permitted wood and bake in it. He baked bread in it and didn’t cool it – the bread is forbidden in benefit. It got mixed with others – he should cast the value of that bread to the Dead Sea, so as not to benefit from it, and the rest of the loaves are permitted.

Explanation of the Law

Speaker 1: Further, he took wood from it, one took wood from the ashera, it is forbidden to heat with them in benefit. He heated the oven with it, it must be cooled, one must cool the oven before one may continue to use the oven. He baked bread in it, well, let him… not have benefit from the… The chiddush is even the warmth, even when it’s no longer there, one has removed the wood, let’s say, if the oven is still warm, the warmth is warmth from idolatry, it heated up by idolatry. It must first cool completely after it heated up. If he did bake bread in it and didn’t cool it, it is forbidden in benefit, because you have benefit from idolatry, because it was baked through heat from idolatry.

Mixture of the Bread

Speaker 1: It got mixed with others, if the bread got mixed with other bread, he should cast its value to the Dead Sea so as not to benefit from it.

Speaker 2: Why must he give with it the forbidden mixture?

Speaker 1: This is no longer idolatry, this is already too far the benefit from their giants. How exactly the analysis works here I don’t know, but this is weak wood in the bread etc. The bread is already only like a moment, and because he loses the moment, he doesn’t need to throw the bread into the Dead Sea, but however much the bread is worth, he doesn’t know which it is, the rest is permitted, because he has no benefit from the weak wood. Okay.

Halacha 17: Spindle from Ashera

The Rambam’s Language

He took a spindle from it and wove a garment with it – it is forbidden in benefit. It got mixed with other garments – he should cast the value of that garment to the Dead Sea, and the rest of the garments are permitted.

Explanation of the Law

Speaker 1: Another halacha, he took a spindle from it, he took a spindle, and wove with it the garment, and he used it to sew with it, forbidden in benefit. This is the garment is forbidden in benefit, because the garment is baked like the bread, was sewn. A greater chiddush, weak spindle in garment in calf that mixed in garments the forbidden is cast value of that garment to the Dead Sea that mixed garment king, the same thing as before. Okay.

Halacha 18: This and That Cause – Vegetables Under Ashera

The Rambam’s Language

And it is permitted to plant vegetables beneath it, whether in summer, when they need shade, or in the rainy season, because the shade of the ashera which is forbidden, together with the ground which is not forbidden, cause these vegetables to grow, and anything that a forbidden thing and a permitted thing cause it, this is permitted in every place.

Explanation of the Law

Speaker 1: He says further, it is permitted to plant vegetables beneath it, under an ashera one may plant vegetables. Seems that vegetables need to be shaded in summer when they need shade, in the rainy season, that the shade of the ashera is its prohibition.

Speaker 2: Ah, what?

Speaker 1: Even when one needs shade, the vegetables need both ground and shade and also a few other things, water. In any case it’s a this and that cause. All these things together cause the vegetables. The shade of the ashera actually helps, but it helps together with things that are permitted. Anything that a forbidden thing and a permitted thing cause, this is permitted in every place.

Halacha 19: Manure of Idolatry and Vetch of Idolatry

The Rambam’s Language

Therefore a field that was fertilized with manure of idolatry, it is permitted to plant it, and a cow that was fattened with vetch of idolatry – it may be eaten. And so all similar cases.

Explanation of the Law

Speaker 1: Therefore, a field that was fertilized with manure of idolatry, it is permitted to plant it, because it’s also a this and that cause. And a cow that was fattened with vetch of idolatry, because food this and that cause, it’s not only a thing of… it’s not only a thing of…

Discussion: Meat This and That Cause

Speaker 2: Meat this and that cause doesn’t help, it doesn’t make it non-treif, it could be it’s only another sort of thing.

Speaker 1: One must understand, the ground with the shade, it’s a different thing than the shade itself.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s a different thing, I don’t know.

Halacha 20: Offerings of Idolatry – Preparation and Offering

The Rambam’s Language

Meat or wine or fruits that were prepared to offer to idolatry – they are not forbidden in benefit, even though they were brought into the house of idolatry, until they are offered before it. They were offered before idolatry – they become offerings, and even though they were taken out again – these are forbidden forever. And everything found in the house of idolatry, even water and salt, is forbidden in benefit from the Torah, and one who eats any amount from it is lashed.

Explanation of the Law – Preparation Is Not Sufficient

Speaker 1: Meat or wine or fruits that were prepared to offer to idolatry, we’re already talking about offerings. One has meat, wine, fruits, one prepared them to offer to idolatry, it is forbidden to benefit from them. Even if they were brought into the house of idolatry, until they are offered before it. Just bringing them to the house of idolatry is not yet enough, the preparation is not yet enough, but after it has become an actual offering.

Here is the same halacha, once one offers to idolatry. Preparation only works on holy things, on idolatry one must actually do the transgression, preparation is worth nothing.

One can understand, because it’s like thought, preparation is a sort of thought like that. We are not idolatry enough seriously that we should reckon with that which was sanctified, designated.

After the Offering – Forbidden Forever

Speaker 1: They were offered before idolatry, then it becomes an offering. Then it doesn’t help even if they were taken out, one took it out from the idolatry, it doesn’t become permitted with that, rather forbidden forever, once one has offered it.

Everything Found in the House of Idolatry

Speaker 1: The Rambam continues: And everything found in the house of idolatry, even water and salt, is forbidden in benefit from the Torah. That is, even if you don’t know that it was offered, or because there’s a presumption that it was offered? What does it mean when one doesn’t know, it’s a Torah doubt like that?

He says: Everything inside the kankalin is forbidden. He brings here the language of the Gemara, forbidden. Seems that everything he brings here speaks of offerings. A piece of idolatry.

Speaker 2: You say that prepared… even if they were brought into the house of idolatry…

Speaker 1: On the contrary, everything found is broader.

Discussion: Meaning of “House of Idolatry” and “Inside”

Speaker 2: Perhaps, the beginning of the halacha, even if they were brought into the house of idolatry, perhaps that’s not… I don’t know, what does it mean? Perhaps that’s another place they were brought, more inside?

Speaker 1: Seems to me more that the point is the end, perhaps one didn’t make any… in the Gemara there is a distinction of inside, inside the kankalin, inside, so he brings a Gemara, but the Rambam is not proper. He wants to claim that the Rambam means the distinction, until they are offered before it, or found in the house of idolatry means as it’s a place called before it. Think about it, house of idolatry can be a large area, somewhere there is like the holy of holies of idolatry, there where one places the offerings, there is already a place of offering. The hallway and the foyer, that’s a house of idolatry.

Speaker 2: He means to say that it’s not forbidden.

Speaker 1: As we say Rabbi Rabinovitch learns perhaps another explanation, which is today like a reasonable explanation. Okay.

Halacha 21: One Who Finds Things on the Head of Idolatry

The Rambam’s Language

One who finds clothing and vessels and money on the head of idolatry – if he found them in a disgraceful manner these are permitted, and if he found them in an honorable manner these are forbidden. How so, he found a purse of money hanging on its neck, folded clothing placed on its head, an overturned vessel on its head – this is permitted, because it is a disgraceful manner. And so all similar cases. He found on its head something that similar to it is offered on the altar – this is forbidden.

Explanation of the Law – Disgraceful Manner vs. Honorable Manner

Speaker 1: We learned until you know, yes, one who finds a horse and vessels and money on the head of idolatry. So, if he took them out in a disgraceful manner, these are permitted, because one just threw it on it.

Speaker 2: Aha.

Speaker 1: And if he took them out in an honorable manner, one can think these are forbidden, because it was designated as a sort of offering. It’s not that one uses the idolatry just for a hook.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: A good place to hang his, his, his vessels.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: How so?

Speaker 2: Aha, good an example.

Speaker 1: How so? He found a purse full of money hanging on its neck, or took a folded cloth placed on its head, or took a cup on its head, this is permitted, he treats it in a disgraceful manner. It’s a disgraceful manner to use the idolatry to… be good. But, and the Sages say, everything that is taken out, everything that is taken out. But he found on its head something that is customarily on the head to adorn it, this is forbidden, because we don’t say simply that he’s using it for a hook.

Speaker 2: Okay, he is offering.

Speaker 1: A whole would be a head, he goes out in such a way that one places on the head.

Halacha 22: Distinction Between Inside and Outside

The Rambam’s Language

When are these things said, when he found them outside the place of its worship, but if he found them inside, whether in an honorable manner or a disgraceful manner, whether something fit for the altar or something not fit, everything found inside is forbidden, even water and salt. And Pe’or and Markulis, everything found with them, whether inside or outside, is forbidden in benefit. And so the stones of Markulis, any stone that appears to be with it – is forbidden in benefit.

Explanation of the Law

Translation

Speaker 1: The Rambam says in the laws of idolatry (avodah zarah), anything that is found outside the place of its worship, ah. It’s not in the shrine of the idolatry, in the sanctuary. But once it’s outside, then it could be that a person did it in a mocking way (derech le’ag), in a degrading way (derech bizayon). But if one finds them inside, we’ve already said that we assume it’s mockery.

Speaker 2: Eh, I don’t understand, it’s a Jew, he can also sometimes do such a thing for investigation.

Speaker 1: But if one finds them inside, whether in an honorable way or in a degrading way, whether something fit for the altar or something not fit, everything found inside is forbidden, even if one found Markulis, because it’s lying in a dwelling place of idolatry, one says such a thing. The simple meaning is not just a presumption (chazakah), this is the law. In the place of the altar, that means just as if he already placed it before the altar. So it’s certainly idolatry. That’s how I would think.

Okay, for Markulis, whether taking out or bringing in is forbidden for benefit. Because with it there is no concept of derech bizayon. Everything is worship. He loves degradation. He’s a peculiar being, this Markulis. Okay. And likewise the stones of Markulis, every stone that appears to be serving the worship of Markulis is forbidden for benefit. Every stone that looks like it belongs to it, as if one already placed it before it, I don’t know, okay. Okay, until here is benefit from offerings to idolatry.

Law 23: Bathhouse or Garden of Idolatry

The Rambam’s Language

An idolatry that had a bathhouse or garden – one may benefit from them not as a favor, but one may not benefit from them as a favor. If it belonged to it and to others, one may benefit from them even as a favor to the priests, as long as one doesn’t give payment.

Explanation of the Law

Speaker 1: Now one can learn a new law about things that belong to the worshippers of idolatry. That is, the church, the whatever, let’s say the church is idolatry. Even in a place that is not idolatry itself, there is also what to discuss regarding having benefit. There is such a law, idolatry of a gentile, a bathhouse, a steam bath, a bathhouse or garden, one may benefit from them not as a favor. One may have benefit.

Law 23: Bathhouse and Garden of Idolatry — Benefiting Not as a Favor

Speaker 1: I don’t know. Okay.

Okay, until here is benefit from offerings to idolatry, right? Now we’re going to learn a new law about things that are not, that belong to the idolatry. That is, the church, the whatever, let’s say a church, the idolatry, the matter, is certainly forbidden in general to have benefit from.

There is such a law: Idolatry of a gentile, a bathhouse, a steam bath, a bathhouse or garden, one may benefit from it not as a favor. Good. One may have benefit if it’s not a favor to the idolatry.

Yes, one doesn’t pay them, or if one doesn’t acknowledge the favor, one doesn’t thank the idolatry. Right, like in places. And if one benefits from it as a favor, if one must thank them for it, then not. Then not. Okay.

The Dispute Between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehudah ben Geira

Because he banned it. This is again from the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehudah ben Geira, who said “Everything they did, they only did for their own honor”. That was the point. He said that one may not benefit from the bathhouses they built, because they make them for their own honor, they want people to say a favor to them.

Understanding the Matter: Benefit from a Bathhouse of Idolatry

Okay. Yes, but let’s understand clearly. Until now we learned about having benefit from idolatry, from offerings. Now is a new thing, an idolatry has a bathhouse, and you are benefiting the idolatry. Right?

The question of favor is, that you show that you have benefit, you don’t mean that you have benefit from idolatry. It’s a bathhouse that was built for idolatry. The question is perhaps not, that the idolatry has benefit that the public uses it.

They give as if offerings to idolatry. Perhaps the rabbis take it or I don’t know what. But there is no concept that one shouldn’t give the benefit to the idolatry. It’s interesting, because the idolatry is not a living thing. You’re talking about the benefit is for the servants of idolatry. It’s a symbolic thing. True.

Law: Bathhouse That is Part of a Partnership

Because he banned it, if the bathhouse is built for… What does “as a favor to the priests” mean? What does he mean? I believe that in the next piece it says, that’s how I understand it. Aha. Because he banned it, that means it belongs a bit to the institution of idolatry and a bit as a partnership, one may benefit from them even as a favor to the priests, as long as one doesn’t give payment. But money one may not give, because when you give money one supports a bit of money for the idolatry.

And supporting idolatry is not a concept.

Discussion: May One Do Business with Worshippers of Idolatry?

Speaker 2: I’ll tell you further, bathhouse is idolatry… they would have understood… a Gemara says, one doesn’t pay for the idolatry, one pays for the bathhouse. So the simple meaning is according to what you’re asking, that it means that if a worshipper of idolatry has another business, he sells houses, may one also not buy from him a house?

Speaker 1: Apparently, I think not. I think bathhouse somehow became like something designated for idolatry. That simply that you do business with a worshipper of idolatry, or even with the idolatry itself, it seems so. There are those who say no, but I don’t see in the law that this should stand.

Speaker 2: So you’re asking me an inquiry?

Speaker 1: It could be that the bathhouse was a kind of service, the idolatry provides a service. Like the mikveh of the synagogue. You go to the mikveh of that synagogue. I know people who don’t go to the mikveh of a certain synagogue, because it’s ah, there’s another mikveh, it’s another business. Ah, he doesn’t go to that mikveh. It’s a thing, the same thing to do business, that the synagogue sells, the mikveh attendant sells wine, I already know what. It’s talking about that. Very good.

Law 24: Bathhouse That Has Idolatry in It

The next law, A bathhouse that has idolatry in it. A bathhouse where in the bathhouse there is an idolatry, is this permitted apparently, one may go wash there, because it is not made there for decoration or for worship, because it can’t be that in a bathhouse should lie a figurine, what’s called a figurine, a naked woman. In a place where they are accustomed to be clothed, and not in a place where they wash naked, and they see it and throw water in its face. You have a sign that it’s not an idol. It’s not a… he means that there is Rashi right further, but if its way of worship was like that, like Baal Peor, which is to defecate before Baal Peor, because that is indeed such a way of idolatry. He says a nude figure, if you see a large statue in a bathhouse, that’s not idolatry.

The Mishnah of Rabban Gamliel in the Bathhouse of Aphrodite

Very good. This is the simple meaning, this is the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah, there was a gentile who asked Rabban Gamliel that he washes in a bathhouse of Aphrodite. By the way, here you see that the Mishnah says the name of idolatry, which was the discussion about Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said that one may only… Yes. In which case? The Mishnah says… what stands in the Torah. Well, why does the Mishnah say? So we hold, what is the end? And I’m learning Torah. It must be a reduction about.

But you see the simple meaning in the Mishnah, he says that Aphrodite is not a name of an idolatry, but a name of a star. No, the planet Venus means Venus. Aphrodite is just the name of Venus. Good, but… but… So it’s not a special name. No, it’s not the name of a star.

No, no, no, no. This is a form of the planet Venus. The planet Venus doesn’t simply mean it has a picture of a star, it’s a picture of a woman, Venus or Aphrodite. We call, by the way, what we call Venus, Venus is just the Roman name for Aphrodite. Aphrodite is a Greek, it’s a name of an idolatry that officially is connected with the star, or the angel of the star, whatever, whatever they believe. So, it doesn’t know what the simple meaning is.

Rabban Gamliel’s Answers

In any case, he, Rabban Gamliel, said two things. First of all, I didn’t come to her, she came to me. The simple meaning is not that the bathhouse is a decoration for the idolatry, the idolatry is a decoration for the bathhouse. A second thing, he says, is this an idolatry that one goes around naked and wild? It’s implied from him, it seems that this is not idolatry.

In short, Rabbi Eliezer said, this is a cultural thing, it has no figurine. This is basically the point. You see that one adds to the chair. Yes.

Law 25: Knife of Idolatry That One Slaughtered With

Okay. Already, the last law of the chapter. A knife of idolatry that one slaughtered with, what happens if someone slaughters an animal with a knife of idolatry? One might think that the entire animal becomes forbidden, like weak wood, like one brought an idol? He says, no, slaughtering with it is not damaging. An animal is worth more when it’s alive than when it’s dead. No, but the slaughter is a repair, I mean slaughter is a labor. No, good. But in any case, it’s in general, I mean, the slaughter of meat is, one must slaughter, but you know that a regular animal is worth more when it’s alive, which means one is damaging, therefore the knife didn’t do anything.

But if it is indeed an animal that is purchased, it’s truly a case that’s forbidden, because he didn’t damage. But if this is just a knife, it’s a whole thing, one learned in the laws of Yom Tov, I mean that one learned that sometimes this is, one preserves the animal. One preserves the… it will die soon the animal. Now the money, yes.

Summary: Practical Ramifications

Okay, so these are the laws of benefit from idolatry. Most of it is quite simple, only a few laws of non-kosher foods. These are complicated laws, but more or less these are simple laws.

Someone asked recently a question about someone who went into a church, he wanted to buy advertising from them, whether one may, is this a question from the laws of idolatry, like bathhouse and garden. Or sometimes there is a tourist place that belongs to a church, a person wants to know whether one may, must he pay, or if it’s free perhaps one may. There are many details.

In any case, apparently this has to do with the laws that they learned. Wonderful.