הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ג

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.