Torah Reading: Vayeishev (Genesis 37:1
Today in Jewish History:
Ya‘akov continued living in the land where his father had lived as a foreigner, the land of Kena‘an.
2 Here is the history of Ya‘akov. When Yosef was seventeen years old he used to pasture the flock with his brothers, even though he was still a boy. Once when he was with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives, he brought a bad report about them to their father. 3 Now Isra’el loved Yosef the most of all his children, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a long-sleeved robe. 4 When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they began to hate him and reached the point where they couldn’t even talk with him in a civil manner.
5 Yosef had a dream which he told his brothers, and that made them hate him all the more. 6 He said to them, “Listen while I tell you about this dream of mine. 7 We were tying up bundles of wheat in the field when suddenly my bundle got up by itself and stood upright; then your bundles came, gathered around mine and prostrated themselves before it.” 8 His brothers retorted, “Yes, you will certainly be our king. You’ll do a great job of bossing us around!” And they hated him still more for his dreams and for what he said.
9 He had another dream which he told his brothers: “Here, I had another dream, and there were the sun, the moon and eleven stars prostrating themselves before me.” 10 He told his father too, as well as his brothers, but his father rebuked him: “What is this dream you have had? Do you really expect me, your mother and your brothers to come and prostrate ourselves before you on the ground?” 11 His brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the matter in mind.
)• Alexander in Jerusalem (313 BCE)
On Kislev 21 of the year 3448 from creation (313 BCE), there occurred the historic meeting between Shimon HaTzaddik and Alexander ('the Great") of Macedonia.
The Samarians, bitter enemies of the Jews, had convinced Alexander that the Jews' refusal to place his image in their Temple was a sign of rebellion against his sovereignty, and that the Holy Temple should be destroyed. The Kohen Gadol ("High Priest") at the time was Shimon HaTzaddik, the last of the "Men of the Great Assembly" who rebuilt the Holy Temple and revitalized Judaism under Ezra. On the 21st of Kislev Alexander marched on Jerusalem at the head of his army; Shimon, garbed in the vestments of the High Priest and accompanied with a delegation of Jewish dignitaries, went forth to greet him. The two groups walked towards each other all night; at the crack of dawn they met. As Alexander beheld the visage of the High Priest, he dismounted his horse and bowed respectfully; to his men he explained that he often had visions of a similar-looking man leading him into battle. Shimon HaTzaddik brought the emperor to the Holy Temple and explained that Judaism prohibits the display of any graven image; he offered to name all the male children born to priests that year "Alexander" as a demonstration of loyalty to the emperor (which is how "Alexander" became a common Jewish name). The Samarians plot was rebuffed, and Kislev 21 was declared a holiday. (Talmud Yoma 69a)
According to an alternative version, this episode occurred on the 25th of Tevet.
• Satmar Rebbe Rescued (1944)
The Satmar Rebbe, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum (1887-1979), was rescued from the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, along with 1,368 other Jews, through the efforts of Rudulf Kastner, head of the Zionist rescue operation in Hungary (an earlier transport of 1,686 Jews had been rescued on Av 29). The Satmar community celebrates the 21st of Kislev as a day of thanksgiving.
Daily Quote:
If there be a prophet among you, I, G-d, make myself known to him in a vision, and speak to him in a dream. Not so My servant Moses; for he is the trusted one in all My house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, manifestly, and not in riddles; and the similitude of G-d does he behold. Why, then, were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?[Numbers 12:6-8]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vayeishev, 5th Portion Genesis 39:1-39:6 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Genesis Chapter 39
1Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, Pharaoh's chamberlain, chief of the slaughterers, an Egyptian man, purchased him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there. אוְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה וַיִּקְנֵ֡הוּ פּֽוֹטִיפַר֩ סְרִ֨יס פַּרְעֹ֜ה שַׂ֤ר הַטַּבָּחִים֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מִיַּד֙ הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר הֽוֹרִדֻ֖הוּ שָֽׁמָּה:
Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt: [Scripture] returns to the previous topic, which it had interrupted in order to juxtapose the demotion of Judah with the selling of Joseph, to imply that because of him (Joseph), they (his brothers) demoted him (Judah) from his high position; and also to juxtapose the incident of Potiphar’s wife with the incident of Tamar, to tell you that just as that one [the incident of Tamar] was meant for the sake of heaven, so too this one [the incident of Potiphar’s wife] was meant for the sake of heaven. For she saw through her astrology that she was destined to raise children from him (Joseph), but she did not know whether [they would be] from her or from her daughter. [From Gen. Rabbah 85:2] ויוסף הורד: חוזר לענין ראשון, אלא שהפסיק בו כדי לסמוך ירידתו של יהודה למכירתו של יוסף לומר לך שבשבילו הורידוהו מגדולתו. ועוד, כדי לסמוך מעשה אשתו של פוטיפר למעשה תמר, לומר לך מה זו לשם שמים אף זו לשם שמים, שראתה באצטרולוגין שלה שעתידה להעמיד בנים ממנו ואינה יודעת אם ממנה אם מבתה:
2The Lord was with Joseph, and he was a successful man, and he was in the house of his Egyptian master. בוַיְהִ֤י יְהֹוָה֙ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֔ף וַיְהִ֖י אִ֣ישׁ מַצְלִ֑יחַ וַיְהִ֕י בְּבֵ֖ית אֲדֹנָ֥יו הַמִּצְרִֽי:
3And his master saw that the Lord was with him, and whatever he (Joseph) did the Lord made prosper in his hand. גוַיַּ֣רְא אֲדֹנָ֔יו כִּ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה אִתּ֑וֹ וְכֹל֙ אֲשֶׁר־ה֣וּא עֹשֶׂ֔ה יְהֹוָ֖ה מַצְלִ֥יחַ בְּיָדֽוֹ:
that the Lord was with him: The name of Heaven was frequently in his mouth. [From Tanchuma Vayeshev 8] כי ה' אתו: שם שמים שגור בפיו:
4And Joseph found favor in his eyes, and he (Joseph) served him, and he (Potiphar) appointed him over his house, and all he had he gave into his hand. דוַיִּמְצָ֨א יוֹסֵ֥ף חֵ֛ן בְּעֵינָ֖יו וַיְשָׁ֣רֶת אֹת֑וֹ וַיַּפְקִדֵ֨הוּ֙ עַל־בֵּית֔וֹ וְכָל־יֶשׁ־ל֖וֹ נָתַ֥ן בְּיָדֽוֹ:
and all he had: Heb. וְכָל-יֶשׁ-לוֹ. This is elliptical. The word אִשֶׁר is missing. [It should read: וְכָל-אִשֶׁר יֶשׁ-לוֹ.] [from targumim] וכל יש לו: הרי לשון קצר, חסר אשר:
5Now it came to pass that since he had appointed him over his house and over all that he had, the Lord blessed the house of the Egyptian for Joseph's sake, and the blessing of the Lord was in all that he had, in the house and in the field. הוַיְהִ֡י מֵאָז֩ הִפְקִ֨יד אֹת֜וֹ בְּבֵית֗וֹ וְעַל֙ כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶשׁ־ל֔וֹ וַיְבָ֧רֶךְ יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶת־בֵּ֥ית הַמִּצְרִ֖י בִּגְלַ֣ל יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיְהִ֞י בִּרְכַּ֤ת יְהֹוָה֙ בְּכָל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶשׁ־ל֔וֹ בַּבַּ֖יִת וּבַשָּׂדֶֽה:
6So he left all that he had in Joseph's hand, and he knew nothing about what was with him except the bread that he ate; and Joseph had handsome features and a beautiful complexion. ווַיַּֽעֲזֹ֣ב כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ֘ בְּיַד־יוֹסֵף֒ וְלֹֽא־יָדַ֤ע אִתּוֹ֙ מְא֔וּמָה כִּ֥י אִם־הַלֶּ֖חֶם אֲשֶׁר־ה֣וּא אוֹכֵ֑ל וַיְהִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף יְפֵה־תֹ֖אַר וִיפֵ֥ה מַרְאֶֽה:
and he knew nothing about what was with him: He did not pay attention to anything. ולא ידע אתו מאומה: לא היה נותן לבו לכלום:
except the bread: That is his wife, but [Scripture] speaks euphemistically. [From Gen. Rabbah 86:6] כי אם הלחם: היא אשתו, אלא שדבר בלשון נקיה:
and Joseph had handsome features: As soon as Joseph found himself [in the position of] ruler, he began eating and drinking and curling his hair. Said the Holy One, blessed be He: “Your father is mourning and you curl your hair! I will incite the bear against you.” Immediately afterwards“his master’s wife lifted up her eyes.” [from Tanchuma Vayeshev 8] ויהי יוסף יפה תואר: כיון שראה עצמו מושל, התחיל אוכל ושותה ומסלסל בשערו, אמר הקב"ה אביך מתאבל ואתה מסלסל בשערך, אני מגרה בך את הדוב מיד
---------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 104 - 105
• Hebrew text
• English text
•
Chapter 104
This psalm tells of the beauty of creation, describing that which was created on each of the six days of creation. It proclaims the awesomeness of God Who sustains it all-from the horns of the wild ox to the eggs of the louse.
1. My soul, bless the Lord! Lord my God, You are greatly exalted; You have garbed Yourself with majesty and splendor.
2. You enwrap [Yourself] with light as with a garment; You spread the heavens as a curtain.
3. He roofs His heavens with water; He makes the clouds His chariot, He moves [them] on the wings of the wind.
4. He makes the winds His messengers, the blazing fire His servants.
5. He established the earth on its foundations, that it shall never falter.
6. The depths covered it as a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.
7. At Your exhortation they fled; at the sound of Your thunder they rushed away.
8. They ascended mountains, they flowed down valleys, to the place which You have assigned for them.
9. You set a boundary which they may not cross, so that they should not return to engulf the earth.
10. He sends forth springs into streams; they flow between the mountains.
11. They give drink to all the beasts of the field; the wild animals quench their thirst.
12. The birds of the heavens dwell beside them; they raise their voice from among the foliage.
13. He irrigates the mountains from His clouds above; the earth is satiated from the fruit of Your works.
14. He makes grass grow for the cattle, and vegetation requiring the labor of man to bring forth food from the earth;
15. and wine that gladdens man's heart, oil that makes the face shine, and bread that sustains man's heart.
16. The trees of the Lord drink their fill, the cedars of Lebanon which He planted,
17. wherein birds build their nests; the stork has her home in the cypress.
18. The high mountains are for the wild goats; the rocks are a refuge for the rabbits.
19. He made the moon to calculate the festivals; the sun knows its time of setting.
20. You bring on darkness and it is night, when all the beasts of the forest creep forth.
21. The young lions roar for prey, and seek their food from God.
22. When the sun rises, they return and lie down in their dens.
23. Then man goes out to his work, to his labor until evening.
24. How manifold are Your works, O Lord! You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions.
25. This sea, vast and wide, where there are countless creeping creatures, living things small and great;
26. there ships travel, there is the Leviathan that You created to frolic therein.
27. They all look expectantly to You to give them their food at the proper time.
28. When You give it to them, they gather it; when You open Your hand, they are satiated with goodness.
29. When You conceal Your countenance, they are terrified; when You take back their spirit, they perish and return to their dust.
30. When You will send forth Your spirit they will be created anew, and You will renew the face of the earth.
31. May the glory of the Lord be forever; may the Lord find delight in His works.
32. He looks at the earth, and it trembles; He touches the mountains, and they smoke.
33. I will sing to the Lord with my soul; I will chant praise to my God with my [entire] being.
34. May my prayer be pleasant to Him; I will rejoice in the Lord.
35. May sinners cease from the earth, and the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul! Praise the Lord!
Chapter 105
When David brought the Holy Ark up to the City of David, he composed this psalm and sang it before the Ark. He recounts all the miracles that God performed for the Jews in Egypt: sending before them Joseph, who was imprisoned, only to be liberated by God, eventually attaining the status of one who could imprison the princes of Egypt without consulting Pharaoh.
1. Offer praise to the Lord, proclaim His Name; make His deeds known among the nations.
2. Sing to Him, chant praises to Him, speak of all His wonders.
3. Glory in His holy Name; may the heart of those who seek the Lord rejoice.
4. Search for the Lord and His might; seek His countenance always.
5. Remember the wonders that He has wrought, His miracles, and the judgements of His mouth.
6. O descendants of Abraham His servant, children of Jacob, His chosen ones:
7. He is the Lord our God; His judgements extend over the entire earth.
8. He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He has commanded to a thousand generations;
9. the covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac.
10. He established it for Jacob as a statute, for Israel as an everlasting covenant,
11. stating, "To you I shall give the land of Canaan"-the portion of your inheritance,
12. when they were but few, very few, and strangers in it.
13. They wandered from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another people.
14. He permitted no one to wrong them, and admonished kings for their sake:
15. "Do not touch My anointed ones, and do not harm My prophets.”
16. He called for a famine upon the land; He broke every source of bread.
17. He sent a man before them; Joseph was sold as a slave.
18. They afflicted his foot with chains, his soul was put into iron;
19. until the time that His words came, the decree of the Lord purified him.
20. The king sent [word] and released him, the ruler of nations set him free.
21. He appointed him master of his house and ruler of all his possessions,
22. to imprison his princes at will, and to enlighten his elders.
23. Thus Israel came to Egypt, and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham (Egypt).
24. He multiplied His nation greatly, and made it mightier than its adversaries.
25. He turned their hearts to hate His nation, to conspire against His servants.
26. He sent Moses, His servant; Aaron, whom He had chosen.
27. They placed among them the words of His signs, miracles in the land of Ham.
28. He sent darkness and made it dark, and they did not defy His word.
29. He transformed their waters to blood, and killed their fish.
30. Their land swarmed with frogs in the chambers of their kings.
31. He spoke, and hordes of wild beasts came, and lice throughout their borders.
32. He turned their rains to hail, flaming fire in their land;
33. it struck their vine and fig tree, it broke the trees of their borders.
34. He spoke, and grasshoppers came, locusts without number;
35. and it consumed all grass in their land, it ate the fruit of their soil.
36. Then He smote every firstborn in their land, the first of all their potency.
37. And He took them out with silver and gold, and none among His tribes stumbled.
38. Egypt rejoiced at their leaving, for the fear [of Israel] had fallen upon them.
39. He spread out a cloud for shelter, and a fire to illuminate the night.
40. [Israel] asked, and He brought quail, and with the bread of heaven He satisfied them.
41. He opened a rock and waters flowed; they streamed through dry places like a river,
42. for He remembered His holy word to Abraham His servant.
43. And He brought out His nation with joy, His chosen ones with song.
44. He gave them the lands of nations, they inherited the toil of peoples,
45. so that they might keep His statutes and observe His laws. Praise the Lord!
---------------------Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Compiler's Foreword
• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Thursday, Kislev 21, 5776 · December 3, 2015
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, end of Compiler's Foreword
אך ביודעיי ומכיריי קאמינא, הם כל אחד ואחד מאנשי שלומנו שבמדינתינו וסמוכות שלה
I speak, however, of those who know me well, each and every one of Anash of our country and those countries nearby,
אשר היה הדיבור של חיבה מצוי בינינו
with whom affectionate words were often exchanged in private audience,
וגילו לפני כל תעלומות לבם ומוחם בעבודת ה׳ התלויה בלב
and who revealed to me all the hidden recesses of their heart and mind in matters related to the service of G‑d which is dependent on the heart.
אליהם תטוף מלתי, ולשוני עט סופר, בקונטרסים אלו הנקראים בשם לקוטי אמרים
To them shall my words seep through, and1 my tongue shall take the form of a scribe’s pen, in these pamphlets entitled Likutei Amarim (“A Compilation of Teachings”),
מלוקטים מפי ספרים ומפי סופרים קדושי עליון נשמתם עדן, המפורסמים אצלינו
being compiled from books and teachers, heavenly saints, who are well known to us.
The “books and teachers” alluded to have been explained above, in the comments on the title page.
וקצת מהן נרמזין לחכימין באגרות הקדש מרבותינו שבארצנו הקדושה, תובב״א
Some of these teachings, the wise (for whom “a hint is sufficient”) will find alluded to in the sacred letters of our teachers in the Holy Land.
As mentioned above, the Alter Rebbe considered certain senior disciples of the Maggid of Mezritch as his mentors, especially Rabbi Mendel of Vitebsk, who then resided in Eretz Yisrael.
וקצתם שמעתי מפיהם הקדוש בהיותם פה עמנו
Some of them I heard from their saintly mouth when they were here with us before they moved to Eretz Yisrael.
וכולם הן תשובות על שאלות רבות אשר שואלין בעצה כל אנשי שלומינו דמדינתינו תמיד
All of them are answers to many questions posed continually by Anash of our country seeking advice,
כל אחד לפי ערכו
each according to his stature in the service of G‑d,
לשית עצות בנפשם בעבודת ה׳
so as to receive guidance for themselves in the service of G‑d,
להיות כי אין הזמן גרמא עוד להשיב לכל אחד ואחד על שאלתו בפרטות
because time no longer permits [me] to reply to everyone individually on his particular query,
וגם השכחה מצויה
and also because forgetfulness is common.
על כן רשמתי כל התשובות על כל השאלות
I have therefore recorded all the replies to all the questions,
למשמרת לאות, להיות לכל אחד ואחד לזכרון בין עיניו
to be preserved as a sign, and to serve as a reminder in everyone’s mind.2
ולא ידחוק עוד ליכנם לדבר עמי ביחידות
No longer will one need to press for a private audience,
כי בהן ימצא מרגוע לנפשו ועצה נכונה לכל דבר הקשה עליו בעבודת ה׳,
for in these Likutei Amarim one will find tranquillity for his soul, and true counsel on everything that he finds difficult in the service of G‑d.
ונכון יהיה לבו בטוח בה׳ גומר בעדינו
Thus his heart will be firmly secure in G‑d who completes and perfects everything for us.
ומי שדעתו קצרה להבין דבר עצה מתוך קונטריסים אלו
He whose mind is too limited to understand how to derive advice from these pamphlets,
יפרש שיחתו לפני הגדולים שבעירו, והם יבוננהו
let him discuss his problem with the foremost scholars of his town and they will enlighten him.
ואליהם בקשתי שלא לשום יד לפה
Of [these scholars] I request that they not lay their hand upon their mouth, i.e., not to keep silent when asked for advice, for fear of appearing to be proud in their knowledge,
להתנהג בענוה ושפלות של שקר, חס ושלום
to conduct themselves with false modesty and humility — for misplaced modesty is falsehood.
וכנודע עונש המר על מונע בר
It is well known how bitter is the punishment of him who3 “withholds food,“ i.e., who withholds Torah knowledge from him who seeks it,
וגודל השכר, ממאמר רז״ל על פסוק: מאיר עיני שניהם ה׳
and also how great is the reward granted to one who provides such knowledge. This is well known from the comment of our Sages4 on the verse,5 “G‑d enlightens the eyes of them both.“
The verse reads, “The pauper and the wealthy man meet; G‑d enlightens the eyes of them both.” The Gemara applies this to a pauper in Torah knowledge and to one who is wealthy in Torah. When they meet, and the wealthy one teaches the pauper, G‑d enlightens the eyes of both of them — with a light that transcends them both.
כי יאיר ה׳ פניו אליהם, אור פני מלך חיים
Thus G‑d will cause His face to shine upon them, with the light of the countenance of the King [which provides] life.
ומחיה חיים יזכנו ויחיינו לימים אשר לא ילמדו עוד איש את רעהו וגו׳ כי כולם ידעו אותי
May He who provides life to the living grant us the privilege of living to see the days when6 “no longer will one man teach another... [to know Me], for they will all know Me, [... from the smallest to the greatest-,“
כי מלאה האר׳ דעה את ה׳ וגו׳
7“for the knowledge of G‑d will fill the earth as the waters fill the sea.”
אמן כן יהי רצון
Amen. May this be His Will.
* * *
והנה אחר שנתפשטו הקונטריסים הנ״ל בקרב כל אנ״ש הנ״ל בהעתקות רבות מידי סופרים שונים ומשונים
As the aforementioned pamphlets have been distributed among all the Anash mentioned above, by means of numerous transcriptions at the hands of sundry and diverse copyists,
הנה על ידי ריבוי ההעתקות שונות רבו כמו רבו הטעויות סופרים במאוד מאוד
the multitude of transcriptions has given rise to an exceedingly great number of textual errors.
As mentioned above, the words “sundry and diverse (copyists)” may well allude to two kinds of errors — the intentional as well as the innocent.
ולזאת נדבה רוחם של אנשים אפרתים הנקובים הנ״ל מעבר לדף לטרוח בגופם ומאודם
Therefore the spirit of the noble men mentioned on the previous page8 has generously moved them to make a personal and financial effort
להביא את קונטריסים הנ״ל לבית הדפוס, מנוקים מכל סיג וטעות סופר ומוגהים היטב
to have these pamphlets published, cleared of all dross and copyists‘ errors (— another possible allusion to the two types of errors mentioned above, with “dross” representing the forgeries), and thoroughly checked.
ואמינא לפעלא טבא יישר חילא
I congratulate them on this worthy deed.
ולהיות כי מקרא מלא דבר הכתוב: ארור מסיג גבול רעהו
Inasmuch as the verse states explicitly,9 “Cursed be he who encroaches on his fellow’s border,”
וארור בו קללה בו נידוי, חס ושלום וכו׳
and where the expression “cursed” is used, it implies both damnation and excommunication,10 G‑d preserve us, it is actually superfluous to add any further prohibition on violating the copyright of the publishers.
על כן כיהודא ועוד לקרא קאתינא
I come therefore only to reinforce the words of Scripture as [the Talmud cites] a mere practice in Judah in order to reinforce an explicit Scriptural statement,11
למשדי גודא רבא על כל המדפיסים, שלא להדפיס קונטריסים הנ״ל לא על ידי עצמן ולא על ידי גירא דלהון
invoking a strict prohibition on all publishers against printing these pamphlets, either themselves or through their agents,
בלתי רשות הנקובים הנ״ל
without the permission of the above-named,
משך חמש שנים מיום כלות הדפוס
for a period of five years from the day that this printing is completed.12
ולשומעים יונעם ותבוא עליהם ברכת טוב
May it be pleasant for those who comply, and may they be blessed with good.
כה דברי המלקט לקוטי אמרים הנ״ל
These are the words of the compiler of the aforementioned Likutei Amarim.
——— ● ———
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Tehillim 45:2. |
| 2. | As in the expression concerning the tefillin (Shmot 13:9): “They shall be for you as a reminder between your eyes.” |
| 3. | See Sanhedrin 91b on Mishlei 11:26. |
| 4. | See Temurah 16a on Mishlei 29:13. |
| 5. | Mishlei 29:13. |
| 6. | Yirmeyahu 31:33. |
| 7. | Yeshayahu 11:9. |
| 8. | Referring to the partners R. Shalom Shachna and R. Mordechai; see approbation of Rabbi Zusya of Anipoli and footnote 11 there. |
| 9. | Devarim 27:17. |
| 10. | Shevuot 36a (in inverted order); and Rambam, Yad, Hilchot Sanhedrin 26:3. |
| 11. | Kiddushin 6a. |
| 12. | As above, in the approbations: Tuesday, Parshat Ki Tavo, 5556. |
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Thurssday, Kislev 21, 5776 · December 3, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 11
A Structure Designated for Worship
"Do not erect a monument which the Lord, your G‑d, despises"—Deuteronomy 16:22.
It is forbidden to erect a structure designed for people to gather around it to worship—even to worship the One G‑d. This is forbidden because erecting such a revered structure was common practice amongst the ancient idol worshippers.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Negative Commandment 12
Kneeling Stones
"You shall not install a kneeling stone in your land, to bow down upon it"—Leviticus 26:1.
It is forbidden to make designated stones upon which to bow down—even if bowing to the One G‑d. This is forbidden because it was common practice amongst the ancient idol worshippers to decorate "kneeling stones" and place them before their idols.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Negative Commandment 13
Trees in the Temple
"Do not plant for yourself an Asherah of any tree near the altar of the Lord your G‑d"—Deuteronomy 16:21.
It is forbidden to plant any tree near the altar, or anywhere in the Holy Temple. This is forbidden because it was common practice amongst the ancient idol worshippers to plant beautiful decorative trees in their temples.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Positive Commandment 185
Destroying Idols
"Destroy all those places"—Deuteronomy 12:2.
We are commanded to utterly eradicate all vestiges of idol worship from the Land of Israel. To shatter, burn, destroy and cut down—any method needed to destroy the idols, their altars, and their houses of worship.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Negative Commandment 25
Benefiting from Idolatry
"Do not bring an offensive [idol] into your house"—Deuteronomy 7:26.
We are forbidden from deriving any benefit from an idol, or any of its implements. For example, it would be forbidden to cook on a fire fueled by wood from an Asherah (worshipped) tree.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Negative Commandment 22
Benefiting from Idolatrous Decorations
"Do not covet the silver or the gold that is on them"—Deuteronomy 7:25.
It is forbidden to derive any benefit from idolatrous accoutrements, such as jewelry used to adorn an idol or the idol's gold plating.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Negative Commandment 48
Treaties with the Seven Nations
"You shall not make a treaty with them"—Deuteronomy 7:2.
It is forbidden to make a peace treaty with the members of the seven nations of Canaan and to allow them to live peacefully in our midst—unless they agree to abandon their pagan ways.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Negative Commandment 50
Kindness towards Idol-Worshipers
"Do not show mercy towards them"—Deuteronomy 7:2.
We are not to show mercy to idol-worshippers, nor are we permitted to praise them. It is even forbidden to say about an idol-worshipper, "Look at how attractive this individual is!"
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Negative Commandment 51
Allowing Idol-Worshipers to Reside in Israel
"They shall not dwell in your land lest they make you sin against Me"—Exodus 23:33.
We must not allow idol-worshippers to dwell in our midst in the Holy Land, lest we learn from their heretical ways. And it is certainly forbidden to sell or even rent real estate to an idol-worshipper in the land.
In fact, if an idol-worshipper wants to pass through our land while en route to his final destination, we do not allow passage unless he forswears idolatry.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Negative Commandment 30
The Practices of the Heathens
"You shall not walk in the practices of the nation that I am sending away before you"—Leviticus 20:23.
We are forbidden from imitating the practices of the idolaters—even in those areas not associated with their pagan rites. Even something as simple as saying, "Since they dress in purple wool, I, too, will dress in purple wool..." is forbidden.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Negative Commandment 33
Interpreting Omens
"There shall not be found among you... one who interprets omens"—Deuteronomy 18:10.
It is forbidden to base one's actions on supposed good or bad omens. The Midrash gives examples of "bad" omens: "My bread fell out of my mouth, my staff fell out of my hand, a snake passed me on my right, a fox on my left..."
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Negative Commandment 31
Soothsaying
"There shall not be found among you... a soothsayer"—Deuteronomy 18:10.
It is forbidden to use any of the methods employed by psychics to stimulate their supposed clairvoyant talents—and to then predict the future based on these actions.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Negative Commandment 32
Astrology and Divination
"There shall not be found among you... a diviner of times"—Deuteronomy 18:10.
It is forbidden to predict the auspiciousness of times or dates based on astrological formations: "This day is auspicious, and this day not so." It is also forbidden to act based on such predictions.
Also included in this prohibition is sleight of hand. It is forbidden to deceptively use sleight of hand to convince others that one has magical powers.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 11
A Structure Designated for Worship
"Do not erect a monument which the Lord, your G‑d, despises"—Deuteronomy 16:22.
It is forbidden to erect a structure designed for people to gather around it to worship—even to worship the One G‑d. This is forbidden because erecting such a revered structure was common practice amongst the ancient idol worshippers.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
A Structure Designated for Worship
Negative Commandment 11
Translated by Berel Bell
The 11th prohibition is that we are forbidden from making a monument1 for people to gather around and honor, even if it was made for serving G‑d. The reason for this prohibition is so that our service of G‑d, exalted be He, should not resemble that of idolatry, since they would build monuments and place idols upon them.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),2 "Do not erect a sacred pillar, since this is something that G‑d your Lord hates."3
One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.See Minchas Yitzchak 1:29.
2.Deut. 16:22
3.Even though Jacob did erect a monument to G‑d (Gen 28:18), "what was beloved in the days of the forefathers, became hated in the days of the children," since the Canaanite nations started using monuments for idolatry (Sifri).
----------------------------------------------------------Negative Commandment 12
Kneeling Stones
"You shall not install a kneeling stone in your land, to bow down upon it"—Leviticus 26:1.
It is forbidden to make designated stones upon which to bow down—even if bowing to the One G‑d. This is forbidden because it was common practice amongst the ancient idol worshippers to decorate "kneeling stones" and place them before their idols.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Kneeling Stones
Negative Commandment 12
Translated by Berel Bell
The 12th prohibition is that we are forbidden from making stones which are prepared1 to bow down upon — even if this bowing down is to G‑d, exalted be He. The reason for this prohibition is also2 to not resemble that of idolatry, since they would place stones decorated by expert craftsmen3 in front of the idols, and bow down upon them to that idol.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),4 "Do not place a designed5 stone in your land so you can prostrate yourselves on it."
One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by lashes.6
In the words of the Sifra,7 "The phrase, 'Do not place [a designed stone] in your land,' teaches that only 'in [the rest of] your land' you may not bow down upon stones; but you may bow down upon stones in the Holy Temple."
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the Talmudic tractate Megillah.8
FOOTNOTES
1.Or "designated," "intended" (Kapach, 5731, note 69). Chavel erroneously translates, "figured stones."
2.In addition to the previous N11.
3.Or, "decorated professionally" (Kapach, 5731, note 70).
4.Lev. 26:1.
5.See Kapach, 5731, note 71. Hilchos Avodah Zarah 6:9 (Kapach edition, note 16)
6.In Hilchos Avodah Zarah 6:9-12, the Rambam rules that this applies only if the person prostrates himself to G‑d with his arms and legs outstretched. If he does so without extending himself in this way, he transgresses a Rabbinic prohibition. If he bows down to an idol, however, he is executed by stoning regardless of the precise manner in which he bows down.
7.Ibid.
8.22b.
----------------------------------------------------------Negative Commandment 13
Trees in the Temple
"Do not plant for yourself an Asherah of any tree near the altar of the Lord your G‑d"—Deuteronomy 16:21.
It is forbidden to plant any tree near the altar, or anywhere in the Holy Temple. This is forbidden because it was common practice amongst the ancient idol worshippers to plant beautiful decorative trees in their temples.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Trees in the Temple
Negative Commandment 13
Translated by Berel Bell
The 13th prohibition is that we are forbidden from planting trees in the Holy Temple or next to the altar for decoration or beauty, even if the intention is to serve G‑d. This is because they would also honor idols in this way, i.e. by planting beautiful, pleasant-looking trees in their houses of worship.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),1 "Do not plant for yourself an Asherah2 or any [other] tree near the altar of G‑d your Lord."
One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by lashes.3
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the Talmudic tractate Tamid.4 There it is explained that this planting is prohibited in the entire Temple.5
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 16:21.
2.A tree which is itself worshipped as an idol, or when the idol is placed underneath the tree (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 7:11).
3.It is also prohibited to use wood built into the Temple structure, but lashes are given only if the tree was planted (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 6:14)
4.28b.
5.I.e. the Temple courtyard (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 6:13).
------------------------------------------------------------Positive Commandment 185
Destroying Idols
"Destroy all those places"—Deuteronomy 12:2.
We are commanded to utterly eradicate all vestiges of idol worship from the Land of Israel. To shatter, burn, destroy and cut down—any method needed to destroy the idols, their altars, and their houses of worship.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Destroying Idols
Positive Commandment 185
Translated by Berel Bell
The 185th mitzvah is that we are commanded to demolish all idols and their places of worship with all kinds of demolition and destruction — breaking, burning, dismantling, and cutting down. Each method is to be used where most effective, i.e. where it will achieve the most complete and speedy destruction. The goal [of this commandment] is that there should not remain any remnant of [idolatry].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),1 "You must certainly destroy all the places [where the nations … worship their gods]." Scripture also states,2 "What you must do to them is tear down their altars [break their monuments, cut down their idolatrous trees, and burn their statues]." Scripture also states,3 "You must tear down their altars, break their monuments [burn their idolatrous trees, and break their idolatrous statues]."
In Tractate Sanhedrin,4 our Sages mention parenthetically a positive commandment relating to idolatry. They then seek to clarify the point by asking, "What positive commandment5 relating to idolatry is there? Rav Chisda explains, The commandment, 'You must tear down [their altars].'"
In the words of the Sifri, "What is the source for the law that if you cut down a tree which was worshipped as an idol, and it regrew [after you have cut it down even] ten times, that you are still required to cut it down? The Torah therefore says, 'a'beid t'ab'dun'."6 Our Sages also said there, "The verse,7 '[You must tear down their altars, break their monuments, burn their idolatrous trees, and break their idolatrous statues,] and you shall obliterate their names from that place,' teaches that only in Eretz Yisrael are you command to chase after them, but you are not commanded to chase after them outside Eretz Yisrael."
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 12:2.
2.Deut. 7:5.
3.Deut. 12:3.
4.90a.
5.This expression shows that it counts as one of the 613 commandments.
6.The double expression of destruction teaches that you must repeat the action until the purpose is accomplished. See Bava Metzia 31b.
7.Deut. 12:3.
-----------------------------------------------------------Negative Commandment 25
Benefiting from Idolatry
"Do not bring an offensive [idol] into your house"—Deuteronomy 7:26.
We are forbidden from deriving any benefit from an idol, or any of its implements. For example, it would be forbidden to cook on a fire fueled by wood from an Asherah (worshipped) tree.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Benefiting from Idolatry
Negative Commandment 25
Translated by Berel Bell
The 25th prohibition is that we are forbidden from adding to our possessions anything having to do with idolatry. Rather, we distance ourselves from it, from its places of worship, and from anything relating to it.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),2 "Do not bring an abomination into your house."
One who gains benefit from anything [related to idolatry] is punished by lashes.
It has been explained in tractate Makkos3 that one who cooks using wood from an asherah4 is punished with two sets of lashes:5 one set for transgressing the prohibition, "Do not bring an abomination into your house," and another set for transgressing the prohibition,6 "Do not allow anything that has been declared taboo to remain in your hands." Understand this well.
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the third chapter of Avodah Zarah.
FOOTNOTES
1.This includes anything which was brought as an offering and anything at all which was made for the idol (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 7:3).
2.Deut. 7:26.
3.24a.
4.See N13 above.
5.This shows that N24 and N25 count as separate commandments.
6.Deut. 13:18. See N24.
------------------------------------------------------------Negative Commandment 22
Benefiting from Idolatrous Decorations
"Do not covet the silver or the gold that is on them"—Deuteronomy 7:25.
It is forbidden to derive any benefit from idolatrous accoutrements, such as jewelry used to adorn an idol or the idol's gold plating.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Benefiting from Idolatrous Decorations
Negative Commandment 22
Translated by Berel Bell
The 22nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from gaining benefit from any ornaments which were used to adorn an idol.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "Do not desire the gold and silver which is on them."
The Sifra3 explains that the coverings of any idol are forbidden, and bases this prohibition on G‑d's statement (exalted be He),4 "Do not desire the gold and silver which is on them."
One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by lashes.
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the third chapter of Avodah Zarah.5
FOOTNOTES
1.This applies even if one is allowed to benefit from the idol itself, such as when the idolaters worship a mountain. One may benefit from the mountain, but not from anything used to adorn it. (See Hilchos Avodah Zarah 8:7.)
2.Deut. 7:25.
3.Lev. Parsha 2, halachah 17.
4.Deut. Ibid.
5.45a.
------------------------------------------------------------Negative Commandment 48
Treaties with the Seven Nations
"You shall not make a treaty with them"—Deuteronomy 7:2.
It is forbidden to make a peace treaty with the members of the seven nations of Canaan and to allow them to live peacefully in our midst—unless they agree to abandon their pagan ways.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Treaties with the Seven Nations
Negative Commandment 48
Translated by Berel Bell
The 48th prohibition is that we are forbidden from making a covenant with the heretics, i.e. the seven nations,1 and to allow them to remain2 in their heresy.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),3 "Do not make a covenant with them."
We have already explained in Positive Commandment 187 that the war against the seven nations and everything connected with them can be counted [in the 613 commandments], and are not placed in the category of commandments which do not apply for all generations.4
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e. the seven Canaanite nations. The standard printed edition of Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 10:1) also brings this prohibition only in regard to the seven nations. In the final revised version, however (preserved in the hand-written Yemenite manuscripts and printed in Kapach's edition of Mishneh Torah), the Rambam rules that this prohibition applies to all idol worshippers, not only those from the seven nations. This is consistent with his ruling in Hilchos Melachim 6:3 (Kapach 5731, note 56). See Minchas Chinuch 93.
2.Or possibly, "to make peace with them" (Kapach 5731, note 55). In Hilchos Avodah Zarah 10:1, the Rambam mentions both: "to make peace with them and to allow them to serve [idols].
3.Deut. 7:2.
4.In the Third Introductory Principle, the Rambam explains that commandments which do not apply for all generations may not be counted among the total of 613. Although we are unable today to identify these seven nations, the commandment itself is still eternal, as explained in P187.
-------------------------------------------------------------Negative Commandment 50
Kindness towards Idol-Worshipers
"Do not show mercy towards them"—Deuteronomy 7:2.
We are not to show mercy to idol-worshippers, nor are we permitted to praise them. It is even forbidden to say about an idol-worshipper, "Look at how attractive this individual is!"
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Kindness towards Idol-Worshipers
Negative Commandment 50
Translated by Berel Bell
The 50th prohibition is that we are forbidden from having pity on idol worshippers or from being impressed1 with anything associated with them.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),2 "Lo techanem." ["You shall not allow them to find grace in your eyes."]
The Oral Tradition explains that this means, "Do not ascribe grace to them." It is even prohibited to say about an idol worshipper who has a beautiful appearance, "This person is beautiful," or "This person has a beautiful face," as explained in our Talmud.3
The Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Avodah Zarah4 says, "The prohibition not to ascribe grace to them counts as a prohibition."
FOOTNOTES
1.Kapach translates the Arabic "as'tachsan" into the Hebrew, "l'shabe'ach," which is literally translated, "to praise" (as Chavel does). In note 62, however, Kapach writes that he uses this word only because there is no Hebrew word which expresses the Arabic, which connotates being emotionally affected by the beauty of something of theirs.
2.Deut. ibid.
3.Avodah Zarah 20a.
4.Chapter 1, Halachah 9.
-----------------------------------------------------------Negative Commandment 51
Allowing Idol-Worshipers to Reside in Israel
"They shall not dwell in your land lest they make you sin against Me"—Exodus 23:33.
We must not allow idol-worshippers to dwell in our midst in the Holy Land, lest we learn from their heretical ways. And it is certainly forbidden to sell or even rent real estate to an idol-worshipper in the land.
In fact, if an idol-worshipper wants to pass through our land while en route to his final destination, we do not allow passage unless he forswears idolatry.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Allowing Idol-Worshipers to Reside in Israel
Negative Commandment 51
Translated by Berel Bell
The 51st prohibition is that we are forbidden from allowing idol worshippers to reside in our land, to prevent us from being influenced by their heresy.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),1 "Do not allow them to reside in your land, since they may then make you sin against Me."
Even if he just wants to pass through2 our land, we are not allowed to do so unless he accepts upon himself not to worship idols. Once he does so, he is allowed to reside [in eretz Yisrael], and is called a ger toshav,3 meaning that he is considered a convert only to the extent that he is allowed to reside in our land. Our Sages said,4 "Who is a ger toshav? One who accepts upon himself not to worship idols. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda."5
An idol worshipper, however, is not allowed to reside [in our land], and we do not sell him land nor rent to him. The [Oral] Tradition states clearly,6 "You may not allow him any residence in the land."
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in Sanhedrin and in Avodah Zarah.
FOOTNOTES
1.Exodus 23:33.
2.Chavel mistakenly translates, "stay in our land."
3.Literally, a "resident convert," as opposed to a "ger tzedek," who converts completely and becomes a Jew.
4.Avodah Zarah 64b.
5.Our version of the Talmud quotes this in the name of Rabbi Meir. The majority of the Sages, however, rule that he is not considered a ger toshav until he accepts all of the Seven Noachide Commandments. The final ruling of the Rambam (Hilchot Avodah Zarah 10:6. Shabbat 2:14. Isurei Bi'ah 14:7. Ma'achalot Asurot 11:7. Melachim 8:10) and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 124:2) is in accordance with the Sages.
6.Avodah Zarah 20a.
-------------------------------------------------------------Negative Commandment 30
The Practices of the Heathens
"You shall not walk in the practices of the nation that I am sending away before you"—Leviticus 20:23.
We are forbidden from imitating the practices of the idolaters—even in those areas not associated with their pagan rites. Even something as simple as saying, "Since they dress in purple wool, I, too, will dress in purple wool..." is forbidden.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
The Practices of the Heathens
Negative Commandment 30
Translated by Berel Bell
The 30th prohibition is that we are forbidden from walking in the ways of the heretics and from acting as they do — even in their clothing and their gatherings in halls.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not follow the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you." This prohibition is repeating in G‑d's statement,2 "Do not follow their customs," which is explained,3 " I [G‑d] have prohibited only customs which have been established by them and their ancestors.
In the words of the Sifra, "The verse,4 'Do not follow their customs,' teaches that you may not follow the social customs which they have established, such as [attending] theaters, circuses and arenas, which are places where they would gather for idol worship. Rabbi Meir says that these [customs] are the 'ways of the Amorites'5 which our Sages have listed. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that [this teaches that] one may not nocher,6 nor grow one's hair long, nor cut one's hair in "kumi"7 style."
One who does any of these is punished by lashes.
This same prohibition is repeated in a different way,8 "Be very careful lest you be entrapped after them." In the words of the Sifri, "'Be very careful' [hishomer], indicates a prohibition; 'lest' [pen], indicates a prohibition; 'you be entrapped after them,' that you might imitate them and act as they do, and it will be a stumbling block to you. One should not say, 'Since they go out wearing purple, so too I will go out wearing purple. Since they go out wearing telusin (which is a type of military ornamentation), so too I will go out wearing telusin.'"
You are certainly aware of the words of the prophet,9 "[I shall punish…] all who are wearing non-Jewish clothing." All this is to keep us far away from them, and to despise all their customs, even their dress.
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the sixth chapter of Shabbos,10 and in Tosefta Shabbos.11
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev.20:23.
2.Lev.18:3.
3.Sifra
4.Lev.18:3.
5.These are types of superstition. See Shabbos 67a.
6.This word normally refers to slaughtering an animal in a non-kosher manner. This being the case, it is difficult to understand why the Sifri should prohibit it as a non-Jewish custom — it is already prohibited due to the laws of kosher slaughter! Others (see Bach, Yoreh Deah 178) learn that it refers to a distinctive non-Jewish hairstyle. Kapach 5731 (note 51) rejects this interpretation, and learns that it does refer to killing animals. He explains that the reason it is mentioned in this prohibition is because it refers to an idolatrous practice in which the animal (particularly a camel) is slaughtered in a way that causes it to make unusually load noises.
7.A non-Jewish hairstyle in which hair from the front half of the head is cut off from one ear to the other, leaving hair only on the rear half of the head.
8.Deut. 12:30.
9.Tzefaniah 1:8.
10.67a.
11.Ch. 7-8.
-------------------------------------------------------------Negative Commandment 33
Interpreting Omens
"There shall not be found among you... one who interprets omens"—Deuteronomy 18:10.
It is forbidden to base one's actions on supposed good or bad omens. The Midrash gives examples of "bad" omens: "My bread fell out of my mouth, my staff fell out of my hand, a snake passed me on my right, a fox on my left..."
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Interpreting Omens
Negative Commandment 33
Translated by Berel Bell
The 33rd prohibition is that we are forbidden from acting on the basis of omens [l'nachesh],1 for example when people say, "Since I just come back from a trip, my will won't be carried out"2; or, "The first thing I saw today was such-and-such — certainly I will earn something today." This kind of behavior is very widespread among the masses of the foolish nations.3
Anyone who acts based on an omen is punished by lashes, in accordance with G‑d's statement (exalted be He),4 "Among you there shall not be found anyone...who divines auspicious times, who divines by omens [menachesh]." This prohibition is repeated in G‑d's statement,5 "Do not act on the basis of omens."
In the words of the Sifri, "Examples of a menachesh are one who says, 'my bread fell from my mouth'6; 'my staff fell from my hand'; 'a snake passed on my right'; 'a fox passed on my left.7'" The Sifra says, "Examples of the prohibition, 'Do not act on the basis of omens,' are those who divine omens from a weasel, birds, stars, etc."
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the seventh chapter of Shabbos,8 and in Tosefta Shabbos.9
FOOTNOTES
1.The Arabic term has a dual connotation: doing something if one thing happens, and refraining from something if another thing happens. (Kapach 5731, note 79)
2.Chavel, based on the earlier "Kapach" translation, writes, "I will not be favored with success."
3.Kapach 5731 (note 80) writes that the Arabic term for "foolish," denotes a foolish belief that an idol can do something supernatural.
4.Deut. 18:10.
5.Lev.19:26.
6.In Hilchos Avodah Zarah 11:4, the Rambam adds, "therefore I won't go to a certain place today, because if I go, my will won't be carried out."
7.In Hilchos Avodah Zarah ibid., "Since a fox passed on my right, I won't leave my house the entire day, because if I do, I will be harmed by a dishonest person."
8.67b. In our versions, chapter six.
9.Chapters 7-8.
--------------------------------------------------------------Negative Commandment 31
Soothsaying
"There shall not be found among you... a soothsayer"—Deuteronomy 18:10.
It is forbidden to use any of the methods employed by psychics to stimulate their supposed clairvoyant talents—and to then predict the future based on these actions.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Soothsaying
Negative Commandment 31
Translated by Berel Bell
The 31st prohibition is that we are forbidden from practicing divination, i.e. to use any of the various ways of arousing one's faculty of making educated guesses1 [regarding the future]. All those who have the faculty of predicting the future before it occurs can do so only because they have a strong ability to make educated guesses that are accurate and come true in the majority of cases — they therefore estimate what will happen. Some people are superior to others in this, just as some are superior to others in other spiritual faculties.
Those who have this faculty of estimation must perform some action in order to arouse this faculty and strengthen its effect2. Some will continuously strike the ground with a stick, and cry out with strange shouts, and clear away their thoughts; after doing so for a long period of time, they go into a semi-conscious state and predict the future. I once witnessed this in the inner West.3
Some will throw small stones on a piece of leather, and then stare at them for a long period of time and then state their prediction. This is well known in every place I have passed through. Some throw a long leather belt onto the ground, and then stare at it and state their prediction.
The purpose of all these [actions] is to arouse the faculty within the person; not that the particular object affects anything or indicates anything. The common people are mistaken in this regard — when some of the predictions come true, they think that those actions showed the person what would be. This mistake reached the point4 where they thought that some of these actions actually caused what occurred. This is what those who study the paths of the stars5 believe, since this belongs to the same category, i.e., one of the ways of arousing this faculty. Therefore no two individuals will make the same prediction, even though they are equal in their knowledge of the rules [of astronomy].
One who performs any of these actions or any others similar to them is called a kosem [one who practices divination].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),6 "Among you, there shall not be found anyone...who practices divination [kosem k'samim]."
In the words of the Sifri, "Who is considered a kosem? One who grasps a stick and says, 'Shall I go or not?'" It is regarding this method of divination which was popular at that time that the prophet said,7 "My people ask their stick, and their staff speaks to them."
One who transgresses this prohibition — i.e. who does the divination and makes his prediction through performing the particular action — is punished by lashes. One who asked the kosem the question, however, is [merely] very detestable.8
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in tractate Sanhedrin,9 and in Tosefta Shabbos,10 and in Sifri.
FOOTNOTES
1.Kapach 5731, note 59, explains that the Arabic word, chadas, indicates that the person bases himself on a swift general grasp of all factors — those present, those which will be in the future, and the past background. Chavel translates, "conjecture."
2.Kapach 5731, note 61. Chavel translates, « rouse them to activity. »
3.Chavel, following the Ibn Tibbon translation, writes "extreme West (i.e. Spain)."
4.Kapach 5731, note 64.
5.Chavel translates "astrologers," but they would seem to fit under N32.
6.Deut. 18:10.
7.Hoshea 4:12.
8.And receives lashes only by Rabbinic decree (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 11:7).
9.65a.
10.Chapters 7-8.
--------------------------------------------------------------Negative Commandment 32
Astrology and Divination
"There shall not be found among you... a diviner of times"—Deuteronomy 18:10.
It is forbidden to predict the auspiciousness of times or dates based on astrological formations: "This day is auspicious, and this day not so." It is also forbidden to act based on such predictions.
Also included in this prohibition is sleight of hand. It is forbidden to deceptively use sleight of hand to convince others that one has magical powers.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Astrology and Divination
Negative Commandment 32
Translated by Berel Bell
The 32nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from acting according to the guidelines of astrology, i.e. "this day is auspicious for doing this action, and we will therefore do it," or "this day is not auspicious for doing this action, and we will therefore not do it."
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),1 "Among you there shall not be found anyone...who divines auspicious times [m'onen]." This prohibition has been repeated in G‑d's statement,2 "Do not act on the basis of auspicious times [lo t'oneinu]."
In the words of the Sifra, "Lo t'oneinu means that you may not assign times." The root of the [Hebrew] word is onah [time], and the meaning is that a person should not establish times and say one time is good and another time is bad.
One who transgresses this prohibition is also3 punished by lashes. This refers to the one who advises4 regarding the times, not the one who asked. Asking [the astrologer], however, is also prohibited, in addition to [the entire practice] being false. One who thinks that a particular time is lucky, or that it will bring him success in a particular action, and acts based on that belief is punished by lashes, since he performed an action.
Included in this prohibition is making optical illusions. In the words of our Sages,5 "A m'onen refers to one who deceives through optical illusions.6 This covers a broad category of tricks and sleight of hand, causing people to believe things which are untrue. We frequently see people who perform in this way — he takes a rope, puts it in his pocket for everyone to see, and then pulls out a snake; or he throws a ring into the air and then removes it from the mouth of a person standing before him, and similar optical illusions well known to the masses. All these are forbidden, and one who performs any of them is called "ocheiz es ha'eina'im" [one who does optical illusions"], which is a type of witchcraft, and he is therefore punished by lashes.
He is also deceiving people,7 and causes tremendous damage by leading fools, women, and children to view things which are impossible as being possible. Their mind then becomes accustomed to accept the impossible, and to think that it is also possible.
This should be well understood.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 18:10.
2.Lev.19:26.
3.As with the previous commandment, N31.
4.Kapach (note 76) asks why the astrologer himself should receive lashes; lashes are given only when the person performed an action, and here the astrologer only speaks. In Hilchos Avodah Zarah 11:9, he notes, the Rambam only says it is prohibited, and says that lashes are given only when an action is performed. He suggests that perhaps taking the astrological books and making the calculations could be considered in the realm of action.
5.Sanhedrin 65b.
6.The source of this interpretation is that the word m'onen can also be read as containing the word, "ayin," meaning, "eye."
7.See Hilchos De'ot 2:6. Hilchos Mechirah 18:1.
-----------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Arachim Vacharamim Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
Consecrated articles1 may not be redeemed with land, nor with servants, for an equation was created between servants and land,2 nor with promissory notes for their physical substance is not of financial worth.3 [This is derived from the expression:]4 "And he shall give the silver." [This includes] silver and other movable property that is worth silver,5 even bran.6
Halacha 2
Whenever a person redeems his consecrated property, he must add an additional fifth. The person who consecrated the property himself, his wife, or his heirs must all add a fifth, as we explained.7 This fifth must also only be movable property. The fifth itself becomes like the consecrated property and the same laws apply to them both.
Halacha 3
When a person redeems his consecrated articles, [failure to pay] the additional fifth does not hold back [the redemption]. Once the person paid the principal, the consecrated article is considered as an ordinary article and it is permitted to benefit from it [according to Scriptural Law]. According to Rabbinic Law, it is forbidden to benefit from it until one pays the additional fifth, lest one be negligent and fail to pay it. Nevertheless, on the Sabbath, [our Sages] gave one permission to partake [of a consecrated article that was redeemed] although the fifth was not paid for the sake of the enjoyment of the Sabbath.8 [Another reason for leniency is that] it is being demanded by the Temple treasurers.9
Halacha 4
[The following laws apply with regard to animals] consecrated for the sake of [sacrifice on] the altar which were [disqualified by] a blemish:10 If the person who consecrated it redeems it, he must add an additional fifth11 as is the rule with regard to other consecrated articles.12 The person who consecrated it for his own purposes is the one obligated to add a fifth, not the one who derives atonement through the [sacrifice after] it was redeemed.13
[One is] obligate to add a fifth [when redeeming the article that was] consecrated originally, but one [need] not add a fifth [when redeeming an article] whose consecration was a derivative,14 as [implied by Leviticus 27:15]: "If the one who consecrated [it] will redeem his home, he must add a fifth." [The verse mentions] "one who consecrated," and not one who extends that holiness.
Halacha 5
Accordingly, if one transferred the holiness of a [consecrated] animal - whether one consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple15 or one consecrated for [sacrifice on] the altar that became blemished16 - to another animal or exchanged an animal consecrated for [sacrifice on] the altar,17 When he redeems the second animal to which he transferred the holiness or which he exchanged for the sacrificial animal, he is not required to add a fifth.
Halacha 6
There is an unresolved doubt [in the following situation]: A person set aside a guilt offering for the sake of his atonement and it became blemished. He added a fifth to its value and transferred its holiness to another animal and received atonement by [sacrificing] another guilt offering.18 As explained in the appropriate place,19 [the animal to which the holiness was transferred] is left to pasture [until it becomes blemished and then its holiness transferred to a third animal which is sacrificed as a burnt offering.20 The question is:] Are we required to add a fifth [when redeeming that animal], because it is a burnt offering, it involves another body21 and is consecrated for a different purpose? Or are we not so required because its [holiness] stems from the initial consecration for which a fifth was already added.22
Halacha 7
The concept of exchanging an animal23 does not apply with regard to animals consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple. For the Torah dealt with the concept of exchanging holiness only with regard to [animals] consecrated for [sacrifice on] the altar.24
What is implied? If a person had an ordinary animal and an animal consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple before him. If he said: "Let this one be substituted for this one" or "Let this one be exchanged for this one," his statements are of no consequence.25 If, however, he says: "This one is in place of this one" or "The holiness of this one is transferred to this one,"26 his statements are binding. The first animal returns to ordinary status and [its holiness] becomes attached to the second.
Halacha 8
The initial and preferred manner is that both [animals] consecrated for the sake of the improvement of the Temple and entities consecrated for the sake of the altar that became blemished should be redeemed only for their worth. If one transgressed and redeemed them for less than their worth, even if one redeemed consecrated property worth 100 dinarim with an article worth ap'rutah,27 the article is redeemed.28 It is considered as ordinary property and one is permitted to benefit from it. According to Rabbinic Law, it is necessary to evaluate its worth29 and the person redeeming it is obligated to make up the monetary difference.
Halacha 9
What is implied? A person had an animal consecrated [to be offered on] the altar and it became blemished. If it is worth ten [zuz] and there is an ordinary animal worth five and he says: "The holiness of this one is transferred to this," it is redeemed and its status becomes that of an ordinary animal. He must, however, pay the additional five [to the Temple treasury]. In the same way, [if a similar transfer was made] when the first animal was consecrated to the Temple treasury, its status becomes that of an ordinary animal. It may be shorn and put to work30 and the second animal assumes its [consecrated status] according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, it is necessary to evaluate its worth to see whether the one to which its holiness was transferred was of equivalent value. If not, he must make up the monetary difference.
Halacha 10
If three people evaluated [the two animals involved] and said they were of equivalent value, the evaluation is not nullified even if 100 come afterwards and say that the animal that was consecrated was more valuable. Since the evaluation [of the animal's] worth is a Rabbinic requirement, our Sages were not strict with regard to it. If, however, two people made the original evaluation and then three people came and say that even the slightest advantage was taken of the Temple treasury,31 [the animal] is reevaluated.
Halacha 11
We do not redeem consecrated articles with a rough estimation instead, their worth is carefully evaluated, as we explained.32 If one redeemed a consecrated article [after making merely a rough estimation], the Temple treasury is given the upper hand.
What is implied? One says: "May the holiness of this cow that is consecrated33be transferred to this cow" or "May the holiness of this garment that is consecrated be transferred to this garment," the consecrated article is redeemed and the Temple treasury is given the upper hand. If the second article is worth more than the first, the Temple treasurers take it and remain silent. If it is not worth the value of the first, [the redeemer] must pay the difference as we explained34 and he must add a fifth.
If, however, he said: May the holiness of this garment that is consecrated be transferred to this garment that is worth ten selaim" or "May the holiness of this cow that is consecrated be transferred to this cow that is worth tenselaim," he is required to add a fifth and must give two and a half selaim.35[The rationale is that] he redeemed it at a fixed price. It is not necessary to add a fifth when redeeming the second animal, as we explained.36
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when a person] redeems an article from the Temple treasury. If he drew the article into his possession37 when it was worth amaneh,38 but did not pay the money until it appreciated to 200, he must pay 200. [This is indicated by the expression:]39 "And he will pay the money and it will become his." It becomes his when he pays the money.40
If he drew it into his possession when it was worth 200, but did not pay the money until it depreciated to a maneh, he must pay 200. For the legal power of the Temple treasury should not be less than that of an ordinary person.41 He acquired it through drawing it into his possession and became liable for its value then.
Halacha 13
If he redeemed it at 200 and paid the money42 and did not draw into his possession until it depreciated to a maneh, he is considered to have acquired it when he paid the money.43 He should draw his article into his possession and the Temple treasury acquires the 200.
If he redeemed it at a maneh and paid the money, but did not draw it into his possession until it appreciated to 200, the redemption is allowed to stand. He is only required to pay the maneh that he paid already. In this instance, we do not say: The legal power of the Temple treasury should not be less than that of an ordinary person.44 [The rationale is that] even an ordinary person would not be able to retract unless he receives the admonition mi shepara, as will be explained in the appropriate place.45 And it is not proper to administer the admonition mi shepara to the Temple treasury.
Halacha 14
When a person consecrates all of his possessions and he is liable to [pay the money due his] wife [by virtue of her] ketubah or promissory notes [owed to] creditors, the woman may not collect [the money due her by virtue of her]ketubah from the Temple treasury, nor may a creditor collect the debt due him. The rationale is that consecration absolves prior liens.46 [Nevertheless,] when the Temple treasury sells his property and the field loses its consecrated status, the creditor and his wife may collect it from the redeemer, for the lien remains on this landed property.47
Halacha 15
To what can this be compared? To two purchasers. [One bought the property from a woman's husband and the other from the first purchaser. The woman] wrote to the first [purchaser] "I have no claim against you."48 [After] he sells it to the second person, she may expropriate the money due her from him.49
Halacha 16
How is this land redeemed?50 We administer an oath to the woman or the creditor first as is the process whenever one seeks to expropriate property that is on lien.51 Afterwards, we publicly announce its sale for 60 days in the morning and in the evening, as we explained.52 We say:53 How much a person will desire to give for this field in order to pay the woman [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah or the creditor his debt? A purchaser redeems it and acquires it even for a dinar,54 so that it is not said that consecrated property was released without being redeemed. Then the redeemer comes and gives the woman [the money due her by virtue of] herketubah or the creditor his debt. [This applies] even if the debt was 100 [zuz] and the field worth only 90, [for] the person who redeems it does so for this sake.
If, however, the debt was twice the value of the field, e.g., the field was worth 100 and it was on lien to a debt or a woman's ketubah for 200, we do not redeem it with the intent of paying the debt or [the money due the woman by virtue of] her ketubah. Instead, it is redeemed unconditionally,55 for if such a stipulation was required to be made, it would not be redeemed at all.
Halacha 17
When a person consecrates all of his property, divorces his wife, and [leaves her to] collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah from the one who redeems [his landed property] from the Temple treasury, she cannot collect [the debt] until he takes a vow,56 forbidding her to benefit from him. [This is a safeguard instituted,] lest an attempt be made to deceive the Temple treasury.57 We do not say that were he to desire [to nullify the consecration of his property], he should say: "I consecrated it in error," and ask a sage [to nullify] his consecration [in which instance, his property] would return to him.58
Halacha 18
Similarly, after59 consecrating his property, a person's word is not accepted if he says: "I owe a maneh to so-and-so" or "This utensil belongs to so-and-so."60 [In this instance, we fear that] he is attempting to deceive the Temple treasury.61 Even if the creditor has a promissory note, he cannot use it to expropriate [the property from the Temple treasury].62 Instead, he must collect his due like the other creditors due, as explained.63
Halacha 19
When does the above apply? With regard to a healthy person. If, by contrast a mortally ill person consecrates all of his property and at the time he consecrates it says: "I owe a maneh to so-and-so," his word is accepted. [The rationale is that] a person will not try to deceive the Temple treasury at the time of his death and sin for the sake of others, for he is going to die.64Therefore if he says: "Give [the creditor his debt]," [the creditor] may collect it without having to take an oath.
If he did not say: "Give [the creditor...]," we do not give him this money unless he has a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified. [In that instance,] he may collect [his debt] from the Temple treasury, because of the statements [the debtor made] on his deathbed.65 If he said to give [the money to the creditor] after he consecrated [his property],66 we do not heed his statements. Instead, this person is considered like other creditors. If the authenticity of his promissory note is verified, he must take an oath.67 He may then expropriate [the property] from the one who redeems it, but not from the Temple treasury.68
Halacha 20
We do not take heed of a rumor that says that a certain person declared all of his property ownerless, consecrated it, or made it a dedication offering unless there is clear proof69 [of its validity].
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Articles which a person consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple.
|
| 2. |
This applies not only in this context, but also in many other areas of Jewish business law. SeeHilchot Sh'vuot 7:4; Hilchot Geneivah 2:2, et al.
|
| 3. |
A promissory note itself is not worth money. It is valuable because of the debt that it records.
|
| 4. |
There is no such verse in the Tanach. The Rambam is referring to wording used by our Sages inKiddushin 5a. They are also referring to a verse, but have shortened and edited Leviticus 27:19.
|
| 5. |
This principle also applies in many aspects of Jewish business law. Objects that are worth silver may be used for the same purposes as silver (Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 8:10).
|
| 6. |
I.e., an object of minimal value.
|
| 7. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 5; Chapter 5, Halachah 3, and notes. As explained there, we are speaking of a fifth of the new total, a fourth of the original amount.
|
| 8. |
Our Sages did not desire that his failure to pay the fifth prevent him from partaking of the entity, for this would reduce his Sabbath pleasure.
|
| 9. |
Since the treasurers demand payment of the fifth the person is not likely to forget. Nevertheless, this rationale itself is not sufficient reason for leniency. Hence, during the week, when the mitzvah of delighting in the Sabbath does not apply, the treasurers' reminder is not sufficient reason to permit use of the entity (see Bava Metzia 54a).
|
| 10. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 11, which speaks of the redemption of such animals.
|
| 11. |
This is reflected by Leviticus 27:13.
|
| 12. |
See Halachah 2.
|
| 13. |
I.e., if a person was obligated to bring a sacrifice and a colleague set aside an animal from his own resources for him to offer, that person required to bring the sacrifice is not required to pay an additional fifth if he redeems the animal.
|
| 14. |
I.e., it was consecrated in the process of redeeming another article, as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the following halachah. See Halachah 11 for details regarding the redemption of an article by transferring its holiness to a second article.
|
| 15. |
In which instance, it must be redeemed whether blemished or unblemished. See Chapter 5, Halachot 5 and 12; see also Hilchot Temurah 1:12.
|
| 16. |
Since it is blemished, it is necessary to redeem it, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachot 11-12.
|
| 17. |
The Rambam is speaking about a practice, temurah, that involves transferring the holiness of an animal consecrated as a sacrifice to another animal. Leviticus 27:10 states that it is forbidden to make such an exchange, but if one does so both the animal originally consecrated and the one exchanged for it remain consecrated (ibid.:33; see Hilchot Temurah 1:1).
|
| 18. |
Because the animal to which the holiness was transferred was lost or unable to be used for a sacrifice for other reasons.
|
| 19. |
Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:14-15.
|
| 20. |
For he is no longer obligated to bring a guilt offering, but must offer the worth of the animal as a sacrifice.
|
| 21. |
I.e., it is not the same animal that was originally consecrated. Our translation represents a slight variation from the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah that was made based on authentic manuscripts and early printings.
|
| 22. |
Hence although the person is not obligated to pay the additional fifth, if the Temple treasurer seizes it, he cannot be required to relinquish it.
|
| 23. |
The Rambam is speaking about a practice, temurah, that involves transferring the holiness of an animal consecrated as a sacrifice to another animal. Leviticus 27:10 states that it is forbidden to make such an exchange, but if one does so both the animal originally consecrated and the one exchanged for it remain consecrated (ibid.:33; see Hilchot Temurah 1:1).
|
| 24. |
Temurah 13a relates that the concept of temurah, exchange, applies only with regard to sacrifices and an animal consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple is not considered a sacrifice.
|
| 25. |
For these expressions imply temurah, exchange.
|
| 26. |
I.e., using statements that indicate that he desires to redeem the animal and not exchange it.
|
| 27. |
A coin of minimal worth.
|
| 28. |
With regard to transactions between men, the laws of ona'ah (unfair gain) apply and a transaction can be nullified if it is sold for more or less than a sixth of its value (Hilchot Mechirah 12:4). These principles do not apply, however, with regard to consecrated property.
|
| 29. |
I.e., to carefully evaluate its worth. See Halachah 11.
|
| 30. |
While it is consecrated, both of these activities are forbidden according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Meilah 1:12).
|
| 31. |
With regard to transactions between private individuals, by contrast, as long as the difference between the article's value and the price for which it is sold is less than a sixth, the transaction is allowed to stand (Hilchot Mechirah 12:3).
|
| 32. |
See Halachah 8.
|
| 33. |
We are speaking about a cow consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple. If it were consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, even after its holiness were transferred to another animal, it would remain consecrated itself (Radbaz).
|
| 34. |
See Halachah 8.
|
| 35. |
As mentioned above, the fifth is one fifth of the new total including the fifth and the amount for which the article is redeemed. Since he stated the value of the article he was giving as ten selaim, the value of the fifth is calculated accordingly even though he is paying more than would actually have been required.
|
| 36. |
Halachah 4.
|
| 37. |
Performing meshichah, an act that would complete the kinyan (formal act of acquisition) of the article.
|
| 38. |
100 zuz.
|
| 39. |
As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 1, the Rambam is not referring to an explicit verse in the Torah, but rather our Sages' restatement of the relevant verses in Kiddushin 28b.
|
| 40. |
And not when it enters his possession. Hence, he must pay the value at the time he redeems it.
|
| 41. |
See Hilchot Mechirah 9:2. As mentioned above, when an ordinary person completes meshichah, the transaction is completed and he must pay its price then. When it lost value, it was already in his possession.
|
| 42. |
One might ask: Why must he actually pay the money? Seemingly the very fact that he pledged to redeem it from the Temple treasury at 200 should be sufficient to make him liable in accordance with the principle (Kiddushin 28b, et al): "A person's statements to the Temple treasury are equivalent to an ordinary person drawing the article into his possession." The Radbaz explains that in this instance, that principle is not applied, because it is possible to say that the pledge was made in error. He did not expect that the article would depreciate in value. Hence, unless he paid the money, he is not liable for the higher sum.
|
| 43. |
And the depreciation is considered to have taken place in his possession as above.
|
| 44. |
Since the transaction is not completed until the purchaser draws it into his possession, with regard to ordinary transactions, the purchaser would have the right to nullify the transaction. Nevertheless, were he to do so, he is liable to have the admonition mi shepara administered to him by the court (Hilchot Mechirah 7:1). As the Rambam continues to explain, it is not appropriate to have this admonition administered to the Temple treasurers.
|
| 45. |
With regard to this admonition, ibid.:2 states: "He is cursed in court and told: 'May He who exacted retribution from the generation of the Flood, the generation of the Dispersion, the inhabitants of Sodom and Amorah, and the Egyptians who drowned in the sea, exact retribution from a person who does not keep his word.'
|
| 46. |
I.e., were the person to sell all his possessions to a private person, his wife and his creditors would be able to collect their due from the landed property in his domain. Since the property becomes the possession of the Temple treasury, those obligations temporarily need not be met.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the liens are in effect even when the property is in the possession of the Temple treasury. Our Sages' statement (Ketubot 59b) that consecration absolves prior liens applies only with regard to the consecration of articles that themselves will be used for the Temple or its sacrifices, not articles to be sold and the proceeds used.
One of the practical differences between the Rambam's position and that of the Ra'avad is whether a person will be liable for me'ilah, misappropriating consecrating property, for benefiting from this property. In Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 18:7, the Rambam states similar ideas as in this halachah. In his gloss to that halachah, the Maggid Mishneh takes issue with the Rambam. Although, here, in his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro defends the Rambam's position in hisShulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 117:7), it appears that he accepts the other view. The Tur and the Rama explicitly state that the Ra'avad's position should be followed.
|
| 47. |
I.e., the property is redeemed with the awareness that it is under lien and that lien will ultimately be collected. Its price is calculated accordingly, as stated in Halachah 16.
|
| 48. |
She had the right to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from this property, but she agreed not to press her claim against this individual.
|
| 49. |
For the field remains on lien to her. The promise she gave the first purchaser is not binding with regard to the second.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this point as well, maintaining that the woman does not have the right to expropriate the property from the second purchaser. For by purchasing the field, he purchased every right that the first purchaser had. Moreover, if forced to pay the woman, he could seek reimbursement from the first purchaser or nullify the sale. In his gloss to Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 19:8, the Maggid Mishneh supports the Ra'avad's view. The Kessef Mishneh, however, defends the Rambam's position.
|
| 50. |
Since it is on lien, obviously, no one will desire to pay its actual worth.
|
| 51. |
As stated in Hilchot Ishut 16:10,20 and Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 22:10, we do not expropriate the field for the wife or the creditor until he or she takes an oath while holding a sacred object that the debt was not collected, waived, or sold to another person.
|
| 52. |
Chapter 3, Halachah 20; Chapter 4, Halachah 27.
|
| 53. |
Our translation is based on manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a slightly different version.
|
| 54. |
Although the initial preference is that consecrated property be redeemed for its full value (Halachah 8), that is not feasible in the present instance. Instead, the person is allowed to pay any sum he desires, for his profit may be small after paying the debt. Indeed, as the Rambam continues, he may even suffer a loss.
|
| 55. |
And the lien on the field is ignored.
|
| 56. |
This vow must be taken conditional to the consent of people at large. In this way, it can never be nullified. Note a parallel in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:9.
|
| 57. |
I.e., he would remarry her and retake possession of a portion of his property in this way. SeeHilchot Ishut 17:9-10. Arachin 23a emphasizes that we are speaking about a healthy man. If a person on his death bed divorces his wife so that she will not have to undergo yibbum, he is not required to take such an oath, for we do not suspect that a person on his death bed will try to deceive the Temple treasury. See Halachah 19.
|
| 58. |
For a consecration made in error can be nullified, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 34.
|
| 59. |
If, however, he made such statements before consecrating his property, his word is accepted (Radbaz).
See the Siftei Cohen (Choshen Mishpat 255:5) who elaborates on the concept that even if he makes this statement directly after consecrating his property, it is not accepted. As support, he cites Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:1 where the Rambam writes that after a person consecrates an animal, even if he seeks to retract his consecration immediately, he cannot. The Radbaz (see his gloss to the following halachah) supports this view. The Kessef Mishneh, however, maintains that a healthy person can also retract his statement directly after making it.
|
| 60. |
I.e., the person claims to be holding it as an entrusted article.
|
| 61. |
And prevent a certain portion of his property from having to be redeemed.
|
| 62. |
For as stated in Halachah 14, consecration lifts liens on property.
|
| 63. |
See Halachah 16.
|
| 64. |
At such a time, when he will not derive any worldly benefit from sinning and is conscious of the retribution he will receive in the world to come, he will certainly not seek to deceive the Temple treasury.
|
| 65. |
I.e., his acknowledgement of the debt. If, however, the creditor does not have a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified, he cannot collect the debt, even though the debtor acknowledged it on his deathbed. The rationale is that (as stated in Hilchot To'ain ViNitan 6:7), a person is wont to state that he owes money even if he in fact does not so that his sons do not think of themselves as rich. His estate is not bound by these statements unless, as stated above, he explicitly instructed that the debt be paid or the creditor has a promissory note that has been verified. Even though in this instance, the money will be going to the Temple treasury and not to his sons, a similar rationale can still be applied. We say that he is admitting the debt so that people will not think of him as a person who hoarded money throughout his life (Sefer Meirat Einayim255:12).
|
| 66. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, stating that the word of a person on his deathbed is accepted even he makes his statements after consecrating the article. For at the time he consecrates an article, the statements of a healthy person are also accepted.
In view of this objection, the Radbaz explains that there are three different time frameworks:
a) before the consecration is made - in which instance the statements of both a healthy man and one on his deathbed are accepted;
b) immediately after (toch k'dei dibbur) the consecration is made - in which instance the statements of a healthy man are not accepted and those of one on his deathbed are;
c) some time after the consecration is made - in which instance neither the statements of a healthy man nor those of one on his deathbed are accepted.
The Kessef Mishneh follows the same basic thrust in interpreting the Rambam, but differs regarding one point, maintaining that a healthy person can also retract his statement directly after making it. The difference between a healthy person and one on his deathbed is that when a person is on his deathbed, his word is accepted as long as he is still speaking of the deposition of his property even though it is not directly after he consecrated it.
|
| 67. |
That he has not received payment for the debt.
|
| 68. |
As stated, in Halachot 14, 16. The Ra'avad adds that if we are speaking about an entrusted article which the dying man acknowledged having received for safekeeping, it is returned to its owner without being redeemed. The Radbaz states that the Rambam would not necessarily differ on this point.
|
| 69. |
Through the testimony of witnesses or a contract that has been verified.
|
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Avodat Kochavim Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven, Avodat Kochavim Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight, Avodat Kochavim Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Thursday, Kislev 21, 5776 · 03 December 2015
"Today's Day"
Monday Kislev 21 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayeishev, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 104-105.
Tanya: Compiler's foreword (p.xii)...in the gates (she'arim) (p.xiv).
Learn Mishna by heart, each person according to his capacity, and then while walking in the street, review Mishna from memory; you will thereby merit welcoming Mashiach.
Chassidim must study Chassidus; all chassidim on Mondays, Thursdays, and Shabbat; T'mimim1 an hour every day.
FOOTNOTES
1. Former (in this context) students of Yeshivat Tomchei Tmimim, the Lubavitcher yeshiva; see Elul 15, (p. 87 in the published version).---------------------• Daily Thought:
Audio: Listen | Download• Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Seven
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to destroy false deities, all their accessories, and everything that is made for their purposes, as [Deuteronomy 12:2] states: "You shall surely destroy all the places [where the gentiles... served their gods]" and, as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:5]: "Rather, what you should do to them is tear down their altars."
In Eretz Yisrael, the mitzvah requires us to hunt after idol worship until it is eradicated from our entire land. In the diaspora, however, we are not required to hunt after it. Rather, whenever we conquer a place, we must destroy all the false deities contained within.
[The source for this distinction is Deuteronomy 12:3, which] states: "And you shall destroy their name from this place," [implying that] you are obligated to hunt false deities in Eretz Yisrael, but you are not obligated to do so in the diaspora.
Halacha 2
It is forbidden to benefit from false deities, their accessories, offerings for them, and anything made for them, as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:26]: "Do not bring an abomination to your home."
Anyone who derives benefit from any of the above receives two measures of lashes: one because of the prohibition, "Do not bring an abomination...," and one because of the prohibition, "Let nothing which is condemned cling to your hand."
Halacha 3
It is forbidden to benefit from an animal which was sacrificed to false deities in its entirety - even its excrement, its bones, its horns, its hooves, and its hide. It is forbidden to benefit from it at all.
To cite an example, the hide of an animal which is marked by a sign that indicates that it was offered as a sacrifice to false deities - e.g., it has a round hole in the place of the heart through which the heart is extracted, which was a common practice [of idolaters] - It is forbidden to benefit from all of these hides and others of the like.
Halacha 4
What is the difference between an idol belonging to a gentile and one belonging to a Jew? It is forbidden to benefit from an idol belonging to a gentile immediately [after it is fashioned], as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:25]: "You shall burn the sculptures of their gods with fire" - i.e., they are considered gods as soon as they have been sculpted.
[In contrast,] it is not forbidden to benefit from a Jew's [idol] until he worships it, as [implied by Deuteronomy 27:15]: "[Cursed is the person who makes an idol...] and places it in a hidden place" - i.e., it is not forbidden until he does private acts - i.e., worship - on its behalf.
The accessories of idol worship, whether belonging to a Jew or to a gentile, are not forbidden until they were actually used for the purpose of idol worship.
Halacha 5
[When] a person makes an idol for another person - although he receives lashes - his wage is permitted. [This applies] even when he made [the idol] for a gentile, and it is therefore forbidden immediately.
[What is the rationale for the latter decision? The idol] is not forbidden until it is completed and the hammer-stroke which completes it is not worth a penny.
[The following rules apply when] a person buys scrap metal from a gentile and finds idols within it: If he has already paid the money, but has not taken possession of it, he should return it to the gentile. The same [rules] apply if he took possession of it, but did not pay the money. Though taking possession represents a formal transfer of ownership in dealings with a gentile, the transaction was made in error. If he paid the money and took possession [of the scrap], he must take [the idols] to the Dead Sea.
Similarly, when a gentile and a convert [divide] the estate of their father - a gentile - the convert may tell the gentile, "Take the idols and I will take the money," "Take the forbidden wine and I will take the produce." Once [idols] come into the possession of the convert, however, they are forbidden.
Halacha 6
We are allowed to benefit from images which gentiles made for aesthetic purposes. It is forbidden, however, to benefit from images that are made for the purpose of idol worship.
What is implied? It is forbidden to benefit from any images found in villages, for one may assume that they were made for the sake of idol worship. When images are found in a city, they are forbidden only when they are found at the entrance to the city and hold a staff, bird, globe, sword, crown, or ring in their hands. Otherwise, we may assume that they were made for aesthetic purposes, and benefit from them is permitted.
Halacha 7
Statues of false deities which are found discarded in the marketplace or in a scrap metal heap are permitted. Needless to say, this applies to pieces of statues.
In contrast, should one find a hand, a foot, or another limb from the form of one of the constellations or celestial signs, it is forbidden to benefit from it. Since one knows that this limb is one of the images that is worshiped, the prohibition against [benefiting from it] remains until one knows that the gentiles who worshiped it, nullified it.
Halacha 8
[The following laws apply when] a person finds articles which have the form of the sun, the moon, or a d'rakon upon them: If they are golden or silver objects, or silk garments, or if these forms were engraved on a nose-ring or finger-ring, they are forbidden. If these forms are found on other articles, they are permitted, since we may assume that they were made for aesthetic purposes. Similarly, we may assume that any other form which is found on an article was intended for aesthetic purposes. Therefore, [the articles] are permitted.
Halacha 9
A false deity, its accessories, and the objects offered to it are always forbidden, regardless of the proportion [of a mixture they make up].
What is implied? If an idol becomes mixed together with statues made for aesthetic purposes - even if the proportion is merely one in several thousand - the entire group must be taken to the Dead Sea. Similarly, if a goblet [used for] idol worship becomes mixed together with many other goblets, or a piece of meat [coming from a sacrifice to a false deity] becomes mixed with other meat, the entire group must be taken to the Dead Sea. Similarly, if a hide with a hole through which the heart was removed becomes mixed with other hides, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire mixture.
[When] a person transgresses and sells a false deity, one of its accessories, or an object that was offered to it, it is forbidden to benefit from the money received, and that prohibition [remains if these funds become mixed with others], regardless of the proportion [of the mixture] they make up. [Deuteronomy 7:26] states: "Lest you become condemned like it." [From this we infer,] that anything that comes from a false deity, from any of its accessories, or from [anything] offered to it is [governed by the same prohibitions] as it is.
Halacha 10
When a false deity or an asherah is burned, it is forbidden to benefit from its ashes. A coal taken from an idol is forbidden; a flame [from an idol] is permitted, for it is not an entity with substance.
When there is a doubt whether an object is connected to idol worship or not, it is forbidden. If, however, that doubt is questionable, it is permitted.
What is implied? Should a goblet used for idol worship fall into a storage room of goblets, they are all forbidden, because a false deity and all its accessories are always forbidden, regardless of the proportion [of a mixture they make up]. If one of the cups from this mixture falls together with two other cups, the the [entire second mixture] is permitted.
Should a ring [used to adorn] an idol become mixed together with one hundred other rings, and then two of them fall into the Mediterranean Sea, it is permissible to use all of them. We presume that the [forbidden] ring was among the two [which fell].
Should [a forbidden ring] become mixed together with a hundred others and then [the group] becomes divided, forty being separated in one group and sixty in another, and then the entire [group of] forty fall into another group of rings, it is permissible to use all of them. We presume that the forbidden ring remained among the majority. If the [group of] sixty fall into another group of rings, they are all forbidden.
Halacha 11
Sitting under the shade of the trunk of an asherah - whether it is worshiped itself or whether an idol was placed under it - is forbidden. It is, however, permissible to sit under the shade of its branches and its leaves.
If a person has another route, it is forbidden for him to pass under it. If he has no other route, he may pass under it, provided he runs.
Halacha 12
Chicks which do not need their mother and nest in [an asherah] are permitted. In contrast, the chicks and eggs which need their mother are forbidden for theasherah is considered as if it is a base for them. The nest itself - [even though it is] in the top of the tree - is permitted, for the birds bring the wood for it from other places.
Halacha 13
It is forbidden to benefit from wood which one takes from it. Should a person have heated the oven with such wood, he must cool it off. Afterwards, he should kindle it with other, permitted, wood and then bake within.
Should he bake bread in [an oven heated in this manner] without cooling it, he is forbidden to benefit from the bread. If [such a loaf] became mixed together with others, he must bring the value of that loaf to the Dead Sea so that he will never benefit from it. The other loaves, however, are permitted.
Halacha 14
If one took [a piece of wood from an asherah to use as] a shuttle, and wove a garment with it, it is forbidden to benefit from [the garment]. Should the garment become mixed together with other garments, he must bring the value of that garment to the Dead Sea. All the other garments, however, are permitted.
It is permissible to plant vegetables under [an asherah] - whether in the summer - when they need the shade - or in the winter. [This leniency is granted] because the vegetables' growth is produced by two factors: the shade of the asherah, which is forbidden, and the earth, which is permitted. Whenever an effect is produced by the combination of a forbidden factor and a permitted factor, it is permitted. Therefore, if a field was fertilized with fertilizer [that was forbidden because of a connection with] idol worship, one may sow it. Similarly, [the meat of] a cow that was fed with beans [that were forbidden because of a connection with] idol worship, may be eaten. The same principle applies in other similar situations.
Halacha 15
It is not forbidden to benefit from meat, wine, and fruits that were prepared as offerings for idols. Although they were brought into the temple of a false deity, [they are not prohibited] until they are actually brought as offerings.
Once they are brought as offerings, [their status changes] and they remain forbidden forever, even if they were later removed [from the temple].
Torah law forbids benefiting from anything that is found in a temple of a false deity, even water or salt. If a person eats even the slightest amount from such substances, he is [punished by] lashing.
Halacha 16
[The following laws apply when] a person finds garments, utensils, or money [placed] on the head of an idol. If he finds them [placed] in a derisive manner, they are permitted. If he finds them [placed] in a deferential manner, they are forbidden.
What is implied? If one finds a purse hanging around its neck, folded garments placed on its head, or a utensil overturned on its head, they are permitted, because [they were placed] in a derisive manner. The same applies to other similar situations. [In contrast,] if one finds an object of a type which is used as an offering for the [Temple] altar on the head [of an idol], it is forbidden.
When does the above apply? When one finds such articles outside its [usual] place of worship. When, however, one finds such articles within the [idol's place of worship], regardless of whether it was placed in a derisive manner or in a deferential manner, or whether it is of the type of objects used as sacrifices for the [Temple] altar, any article found within [such a structure] - even water or salt - becomes forbidden.
[Different laws apply regarding] Pe'or and Marculis. It is forbidden to benefit from anything that is found together with them, whether [it is found] in their [temple] or outside of it. Similarly, with regard to the stones [found near a symbol of] Marculis: If a stone appears to be together with it, it is forbidden to benefit from it.
Halacha 17
When [the shrine of] a false deity possesses a bathhouse or a garden, benefit may be derived from it, provided one does not offer appreciation [in return]. [If] one must offer appreciation, it is forbidden.
[If the garden or bathhouse] is mutually owned by [the shrine] and another entity, one may derive benefit from it even if one provides its priests with appreciation. One may not, however, pay a fee.
Halacha 18
It is permitted to bathe in a bathhouse even though an idol is located within, because it is placed there for aesthetic purposes and not to be served. [This leniency can be inferred from the use by Deuteronomy 12:2 of the term:] "their gods" - i.e., the prohibition applies when they treat them as gods, and not when they humiliate them, such as in an instance where [the idol] stands over the sewage pipe and they urinate before it.
Should [the idol's] worship involve such activities, it is forbidden to enter [the bathhouse].
Halacha 19
It is permitted to benefit from [an animal] slaughtered using a knife [forbidden because of its connection to] idol worship, because one is detracting from [the animal's] value. If the animal is in danger [of dying], it is forbidden, because one is enhancing its value, and this improvement involves benefit from an accessory of idol worship.
Similarly, it is forbidden to cut meat with [such a knife], because one is enhancing its value. Should one cut with a destructive intent, causing a loss, the meat is permitted.
Commentary Halacha
It is a positive commandment - Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 185) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 436) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
to destroy false deities - The process of destruction is described in Chapter 8, Halachah 6.
all their accessories, and everything that is made for their purposes -Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) states that the mitzvah is to destroy "every entity which is worshiped and their temples," from which one might conclude that the destruction of the accessories of idol worship is a Rabbinic injunction. Avodat HaMelech, however, cites Avodah Zarah 51b, which also derives the injunction to destroy the accessories of idol worship from a Biblical proof-text.
as [Deuteronomy 12:2] states: "You shall surely destroy all the places [where the gentiles... served their gods]" - Note the Bnei Binyamin, which states that when fulfilling this commandment, we should recite a blessing: "Blessed... who commanded us to eradicate idol worship from our land." Other commentaries explain that reciting a blessing is inappropriate, based on the principle (Rashba, Vol. I, Responsum 18) that a blessing is not recited for a mitzvah that comes to correct a sin. The Bnei Binyamin, however, maintains that this principle does not apply here, since the transgression was committed by gentiles.
and, as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:5]: "Rather, what you should do to them is tear down their altars." - Kinat Eliyahu questions the purpose of the second proof-text.
In Eretz Yisrael, the mitzvah requires us to hunt after idol worship until it is eradicated from our entire land. - Kinat Eliyahu explains that this obligation has its source in the uniqueness of Eretz Yisrael. Because it is God's holy land, we must rid it of idol worship. In contrast,
In the diaspora, however - The obligation to destroy false deities is of a different nature.
we are not required to hunt after it. - Since these lands are not holy, we are not obligated to eradicate idol worship from them.
Rather, whenever we conquer a place, we must destroy all the false deities contained within - because a false deity may not exist under a Jew's authority.
In his notes on the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:20), the Vilna Gaon explains that the Rambam's statements appear to mean that whenever the Jews conquer a land, they are obligated to destroy all false deities and their places of worship. These statements may, however, also be interpreted as meaning that whenever an individual finds or takes possession of a false deity, it must be destroyed.
[The source for this distinction is Deuteronomy 12:3, which] states: "And you shall destroy their name from this place," - i.e., Eretz Yisrael. The opening verse of the Biblical passage cited states: "These are the statutes... you must heed... in the land that God... is giving you."
[implying that] you are obligated to hunt false deities in Eretz Yisrael, but you are not obligated to do so in the diaspora. - The Bnei Binyamin writes that even according to the opinions which permit gentiles to believe in Christianity, Jews are obligated to destroy their objects of worship and churches. This raises a question regarding the churches that exist in Eretz Yisrael today. Should their existence be tolerated, or are we, as a people and as individuals, obligated to destroy them?
Commentary Halacha
It is forbidden to benefit from false deities - i.e., statues, trees, or other entities which are worshiped.
their accessories, offerings for them - The Rambam considers the prohibition against benefiting from wine offered as a libation for false deities as a mitzvah in its own right (Negative Commandment 194). Therefore, he does not mention the laws governing this prohibition here, but in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, where he devotes three chapters to the subject.
[The fact that the Rambam associates the prohibition against benefitting from objects offered to idols with a Biblical proof-text appears to indicate that he considers this prohibition as having its roots in the Torah itself. Note Tosafot, Bava Kama 72a which states that the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.]
and anything made for them, as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:26]: "Do not bring an abomination to your home." - Note the Pri Chadash,who questions whether a person who brings a false deity home without benefiting from it also receives lashes.
Anyone who derives benefit - Yad HaMelech contrasts the prohibition against benefiting from false gods with other Torah prohibitions where benefit is forbidden: e.g., non-kosher species of animals. In the latter case, though all types of benefit are forbidden, the Torah requires that punishment be administered only for eating the forbidden substances, and not for deriving other types of benefit (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:16), while with regard to false deities, punishment is administered for deriving any type of benefit.
The source for this difference is that the Torah uses the expression "Do not eat" or the like when forbidding the other prohibitions. Accordingly, punishment is administered only for eating. In contrast, the verses prohibiting false deities are more inclusive in nature.
from any of the above receives two measures of lashes: one because of the prohibition, "Do not bring an abomination..." -Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 25) and Sefer HaChinuch(Mitzvah 429) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
and one because of the prohibition, "Let nothing which is condemned cling to your hand." - As mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 7, the latter prohibition primarily concerns the property of a condemned city (עיר הנדחת). Nevertheless, since false deities are also described as "condemned," benefiting from them is also included in the scope of the above prohibition (Megillat Esther, Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 194).
Though the Ramban (Hasagot L'Sefer HaMitzvot) disputes the Rambam's decision, support for the Rambam's opinion can be found in several Talmudic sources - e.g., Avodah Zarah 34b, 51b.
The prohibition stated in this halachah and the positive commandment mentioned in the previous one serve as the foundation for all the laws discussed in this and the following chapter.
Commentary Halacha
It is forbidden - because of the prohibition mentioned in the previous halachah. (See also Deuteronomy 32:38.)
to benefit from an animal which was sacrificed to false deities in its entirety - The standard published text of the Mishneh Torah states שהקריבוה כולה לעכוóם - i.e., the phrase "in its entirety" modifies the verb "sacrifices," leading to the conclusion that were an animal to be consecrated only partially to a false deity different rules would apply. Note the Kessef Mishneh, Avodat HaMelech, and Or Sameach, which discuss this concept.
Authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah, however, read אסורה כולה - i.e., "in its entirety" modifies "forbidden." According to this version, the explanation is straightforward, when an animal is sacrificed to a false deity the prohibition includes
even its excrement, its bones, its horns, its hooves, and its hide -i.e., the prohibition involves not only the animal's meat, but even these less important elements of its being.
It is forbidden to benefit from it at all. To cite an example, the hide of an animal which is marked by a sign that indicates that it was offered as a sacrifice to false deities - e.g., it has a round hole - if the hole is oblong, there is no prohibition (Avodah Zarah 2:3).
in the place of the heart through which the heart is extracted - They would slit open the animal's hide and kill it by cutting out the heart (Keter HaMelech)
which was a common practice [of idolaters] - when offering sacrifices (Avodah Zarah, ibid.):
It is forbidden to benefit from all of these hides and others of the like - because we assume that the animal was used as a sacrifice to idols and is therefore forbidden.
Commentary Halacha
What is the difference - with regard to the prohibition mentioned in the previous law
between an idol belonging to a gentile and one belonging to a Jew? It is forbidden to benefit from an idol belonging to a gentile immediately [after it is fashioned], as [implied by - the Torah's command to destroy idols
Deuteronomy 7:25]: "You shall burn the sculptures of their gods with fire;" i.e. - the mention of the word "sculptures" is an addition, teaching that
they are considered gods as soon as they have been sculpted -whether they have been worshiped or not. Therefore, they are forbidden from that time onward. Note the comments of the Lechem Mishneh, which mentions an apparent contradiction between these statements and Chapter 8, Halachah 8. (See our commentary on that halachah.)
[In contrast,] it is not forbidden to benefit from a Jew's [idol] until he worships it, as [implied by Deuteronomy 27:15]: "[Cursed is the person who makes an idol...] and places it in a hidden place," -When does the curse fall? Not when the idol is made, but when it is placed in a hidden place.
i.e., it is not forbidden until he does private acts - i.e., worship - for it is unlikely that a Jew would worship a false deity openly.
on its behalf.
The accessories of idol worship, whether belonging to a Jew or to a gentile, are not forbidden until they were actually used for the purpose of idol worship. - Avodah Zarah 51b derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 12:2, which states "You shall surely destroy all the places where the gentiles... served their gods." The gentiles' places of worship and the other accessories to idol worship are not forbidden until the false deities are "served."
Commentary Halacha
[When] a person makes an idol for another person - although he receives lashes - as stated above, Chapter 3, Halachah 9
his wage is permitted. - We do not say that the wage is benefit derived from false deities, and is therefore forbidden.
[This applies] even when he made [the idol] for a gentile, and it is therefore forbidden immediately - as explained in the previous halachah.
[What is the rationale for the latter decision? The idol] is not forbidden until it is completed and the hammer-stroke which completes it - See Shabbat73a, 75b and commentaries regarding the final hammer-stroke which completes a project.
is not worth a penny. - Avodah Zarah 19b explains that this law is dependent on the following principle of business law: Every moment an artisan works on a project is considered as a separate entity. When he finishes the project, it is considered as if the entire sum of money - with the exception of the value of the final hammer-stroke - is owed him from beforehand. Since benefit from the idol is not forbidden until it is completed, the money which is owed him previously is permitted.
[The following rules apply when] a person buys scrap metal from a gentile - There is an apparent contradiction between the laws which follow and Halachah 7, which states that idols found in a scrap metal heap are permitted. Two possible resolutions are offered:
a) According to the version (see our commentary on that halachah) which reads "statues" and not "statues of idols," there is no contradiction.
b) The prohibitions mentioned in this halachah were instituted because of the appearance that might be created if the Jew were to keep the idols he purchased. Accordingly, stricter laws were instituted.
a) According to the version (see our commentary on that halachah) which reads "statues" and not "statues of idols," there is no contradiction.
b) The prohibitions mentioned in this halachah were instituted because of the appearance that might be created if the Jew were to keep the idols he purchased. Accordingly, stricter laws were instituted.
and finds idols within it: - Once the Jew becomes the full legal owner of the idols, he is obligated to destroy them, and cannot nullify the transaction and return them. The question in the following instances is whether the transaction has been completed or not.
If he has already paid the money, but has not taken possession - We have taken some liberty in translating the word, ומשך. Literally, it means "and drew it after him." Performing this activity, however, is one of the means of formalizing a business transaction (see Hilchot Mechirah 3:1) and, therefore, the word was translated as above.
of it, he should return it to the gentile. - Though paying money represents the finalization of a transaction (kinyan) between a Jew and gentile (see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:14), the transaction was made in error, as explained below. Since, in transactions carried out between two Jews, the transaction would not be completed until the recipient takes possession of the article, a Jew can return the idols to the gentile in this instance.
The same [rules] apply if he took possession of it, but did not pay the money. Although taking possession represents a formal transfer of ownership in dealings with a gentile - See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah, ibid.
the transaction was made in error - Since, in transactions carried out between two gentiles, the transaction would not be completed until the money was paid, it can be nullified in this instance.
If he paid the money and took possession [of the scrap] - even though the transaction was carried out in error, since it appears to have been completed, it is forbidden to benefit from the idols because of the impression it may create. Therefore, they must be destroyed (Avodah Zarah 53a, 71b). (See also Siftei Cohen 1464.)
Our commentary follows the interpretation of Rav Kapach. It must be noted that many of the classic commentaries on the Mishneh Torah have questioned why the Rambam mentions the concept of a transaction made in error only in the case when the Jew took possession and did not pay, but not when he paid and did not take possession. They have offered several possible resolutions, including a sweeping statement byAvodat HaMelech that our Sages nullified the effectiveness of monetary payment as an effective means of finalizing the transfer of property (kinyan), not only with regard to transactions between two Jews (seeHilchot Mechirah 3:1,4-5), but also with regard to transactions between a Jew and a gentile.
(Interestingly, though the Rambam's phraseology has raised such problems, it is quoted verbatim by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah146:3.)
When stating that a forbidden object must be destroyed, our Sages frequently used the expression:
he must take [the idols] to the Dead Sea. -Tosafot, Avodah Zarah43b, explain that one need not literally take the idols to the Dead Sea. By using that term, our Sages implied a place where the idols will never benefit man. Similarly, the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 146) explains that the Dead Sea is mentioned because it is a desolate area, not frequented by ships. If an article is cast into that sea, we can assume that it will not be recovered.
Tosafot also relates that, in practice, one need not take the idols to the Dead Sea. All that is necessary is to destroy the article in a manner in which neither it, nor its ashes or dust, will benefit man. See also Chapter 8, Halachah 6.
[It must be noted that though the Rambam occasionally uses the term 18חלמהáםי to refer to the Mediterranean Sea (see the conclusion to his Commentary to the Mishnah), in this context, it is clear that his intent is the Dead Sea.]
Similarly, when a gentile and a convert [divide] the estate of their father - a gentile - The problem in this instance is that it is forbidden to exchange an idol for other property. Hence, before taking possession of the inheritance,
the convert may tell the gentile, "Take the idols and I will take the money" or "Take the forbidden wine and I will take the produce." - In which case, the idols have never come into the convert's possession and, hence, he is not considered to have benefited from their exchange.
Once [idols] come into the possession of the convert, however -they are considered to be idols belonging to a Jew, and
they are forbidden - and must be destroyed.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (D'mai 6:10), the Rambam writes that were a similar situation - an inheritance containing property from which one heir would be allowed to benefit from and one would be forbidden - to occur among Jews, the leniencies mentioned above would not be permitted.
The difference between the two cases is that when a Jew inherits property from his father, the transfer of ownership is immediate, and from the moment of his father's death, the forbidden property belongs to the heir, who must take responsibility for it. In contrast, a convert's inheritance of his gentile father's estate is a Rabbinic decree, instituted in consideration of the convert. According to the Torah, once he converts, he has no connection to his natural parents. The Sages extended the leniency they granted in allowing him to acquire the inheritance to include the right to barter these forbidden articles before they actually become his property. (See also Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 146:5.
Commentary Halacha
We are allowed to benefit - i.e., enjoy the artistic talent and/or sell or use as scrap metal
from images - The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 141) states that these laws apply only to human images. Other authorities (and indeed certain interpretations of the Tur) disagree, and consider the statements as referring to all images. From the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:1), it appears that the latter opinion reflects his view.
which gentiles made for aesthetic purposes. - Note Chapter 3, Halachah 10, with regard to the prohibition against Jews making human images even for these purposes. See our commentary on that halachah, with regard to the place of art in Jewish life.
It is forbidden, however, to benefit from images that are made for the purpose of idol worship - even if they are artistic masterpieces. Thus, the entire realm of the gentile's sacramental art is forbidden to us.
What is implied? - The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 141:4) explains that the statements that follow (which are based on Avodah Zarah 41a) reflect the socio-cultural environment in which the Rambam lived. The criteria he mentions are thus not hard and fast rules, and will vary if different conditions prevail in other societies.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah, ibid., based onAvodah Zarah 40-41), the Rambam explains that although Rabbi Meir maintained that all gentile images were forbidden because they would be used for different pagan rites, the Sages disagreed and laid down the following general rules.
It is forbidden to benefit from any images found in villages for -Simple villagers are not expected to have artistic tastes. Therefore,
one may assume that they were made for the sake of idol worship. -Even if we have no proof to that effect, we follow the general rule that it is forbidden to benefit from an image which is merely suspected of being worshiped as an idol.
When images are found - even when the circumstances mentioned in the following halachah do not apply
in a city - Since the inhabitants of a metropolis are expected to be cultured and sophisticated, the images found there are not necessarily idols. Hence,
they are forbidden only when they are found at the entrance to the city - a position which implies their authority over the entire city.
and hold a staff, bird, globe, sword, crown, or ring in their hands. -All of these are also symbols of authority or sovereignty.
Otherwise, we may assume - The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 141:1, which frequently quotes the Rambam verbatim, changes the phraseology used in this clause from "we may assume" to "surely." The Siftei Cohen(141:1) explains that this change clarifies that even though it is forbidden to benefit from an image which is merely suspected to have been worshiped as an idol (see Halachah 10), our assumption
that they were made for aesthetic purposes - is so strong that this is not considered as a case of doubt
and benefit from them is permitted.
Commentary Halacha
Statues of false deities - Our text follows the published texts of theMishneh Torah. The words "of false deities" and several of the other points in this halachah appear to be printer's additions, which are not found in the authoritative manuscripts and run contrary to the explanation of these concepts in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:2). Note also the apparent contradiction mentioned in our commentary on Halachah 5.
Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 141:2 does not mention "idols," but "statues."
which are found discarded in the marketplace or in a scrap metal heap are permitted. - Avodah Zarah 41a-b explains this law as follows. The Mishnah uses the expression "statues" - i.e., a statue which we do not know that it has been worshiped. Shmuel, one of the Talmudic sages, adds, however, that the leniency also applies to idols which we know were worshiped.
His decision is based on the principle (Chapter 8, Halachah 8) that if the gentiles who worship an idol no longer consider it a god, the prohibition against benefiting from it is nullified. In this instance, the fact that these statues were found discarded is the clearest proof that their worshipers forsook them.
Afterwards, the Talmud quotes a difference of opinion between Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, concerning idols which are broken accidentally. In the context of the explanation of that difference of opinion, the Talmud mentions the explanation of the Mishnah in question by Rabbi Yochanan (whom the halachah follows, see Chapter 8, Halachah 11). He explains that the pieces of the statues (not idols) are permitted because we are not sure that they were ever worshiped. Even if they have been worshiped, it is possible that they were nullified.
Thus, according to the Talmud, the interpretation of these laws is as follows: If one finds an idol that was obviously purposefully broken (Shmuel's law), it is permitted to benefit from it. If, however, the idol was not destroyed with an obvious destructive intent, it is forbidden to benefit from it, as Rabbi Yochanan states.
Needless to say, this applies to pieces of statues. - The fact that they were broken would appear to indicate that their worshipers nullified them.
In contrast, should one find a hand, a foot, or another limb from the form of one of the constellations or celestial signs - The phrase, "from the form of one of the constellations or celestial signs," is a printer's addition, which runs contrary to the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah,Avodah Zarah, ibid. This phrase implies that this clause refers to a limb broken from an idol. The authoritative manuscripts state "should one find a hand... which is the form of a deity."
In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam states that this clause (found both in the mishnah and in this halachah) does not refer to a limb that is broken from an idol, but rather to an instance where the limb itself is worshiped. The Rambam explains that since the previous clause states that broken limbs of statues are permitted, this clause must be speaking about a different concept.
it is forbidden to benefit from it. - Though the fact that it was abandoned in a scrap heap could be considered as an indication that it was nullified,
Since one knows that this limb is one of the images that is worshiped - i.e., the prohibition against its use is firmly established,
the prohibition against [benefiting from it] remains until one knows - i.e., it is established with equal certainty
that the gentiles who worshiped it, nullified it - at which point its use is no longer prohibited, as explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 8.
Commentary Halacha
[The following laws apply when] a person finds articles which have the form of the sun, the moon - As mentioned in the commentary on Chapter 3, Halachah 11, the Rambam writes in his Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 3:3:
This does not mean a sphere which represents the sun, or a hemisphere which represents the moon, but rather the images which the astrologers [i.e., those following Greek mythology] attribute to the stars... - e.g., Saturn is represented as a dark old man of venerable age, Venus is represented as a beautiful maiden adorned with gold, and the sun is represented as a king with a diadem sitting in a chariot.
The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 141:3) quotes this explanation as halachah.
or a d'rakon - In his Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam describes this image as a fishlike man with fins and many scales, probably referring to the Greek god Neptune. Rashi, Avodah Zarah 42b, and others interpret the form as that of an animal similar to a serpent. Perhaps this term is the source for the word "dragon."
upon them: - The question is whether these forms should be considered to be representations of deities (and hence, forbidden).
If they are golden or silver objects, or silk garments - i.e., objects of great value.
or if these forms were engraved on a nose-ring or finger-ring -Rings, in addition to their value, also are a symbol of subservience: a slave wears his master's ring.
they are forbidden. - The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 141:3) mentions that even valuable objects are permitted if one is certain that they have never been used as articles of worship.
If these forms are found on other articles, they are permitted - The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah, ibid.) states the general rule: "If these articles are found on objects of value, they are forbidden. If they are found on articles of little worth, they are permitted." The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) mentions pots or kettles as examples of objects of little worth.
since we may assume that they were made for aesthetic purposes. -The Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3:3) states that if we are certain that these images were made for the purposes of worship, the article is forbidden even if it is of little value. TheShulchan Aruch (ibid.) quotes this principle.
The Ramah states that since paganism is not common at present, we assume that these forms were made for artistic purposes. Hence, it is not forbidden to benefit from an article even if it contains pagan images. One may not, however, keep such an article in one's possession. He adds that even at present, certain individuals are stringent with themselves and do not benefit from an article containing the three forms mentioned above.
Similarly, we may assume that any other form which is found on an article was intended for aesthetic purposes. - Avodah Zarah 42b asks rhetorically: "Are these the only forms that are worshiped?" and explains that it is possible that the other forms would also be worshiped, but they are generally not made for that purpose. In contrast, the three forms mentioned above are generally made for the purpose of worship.
Therefore, [the articles] are permitted.
Commentary Halacha
A false deity, its accessories, and the objects offered to it - Avodah Zarah29b derives the prohibition against benefiting from wine used by pagans as a libation (yayin nesech) from the prohibition against benefiting from animals sacrificed to idols. Since the mishnah (Avodah Zarah 74a) specifically mentions yayin nesech as forbidden, regardless of the proportion of the mixture involved, the same principle applies to all objects offered to an idol.
are always forbidden, regardless of the proportion [of a mixture they make up]. - As mentioned in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, Chapter 16, the prohibition against benefiting from different substances can be negated when the substance is accidentally mixed with other substances. For example, the prohibition against eating certain forbidden foods (e.g., non-kosher meat, fats, mixtures of meat and milk) is lifted when these substances become mixed with 60 times their amount of other substances. The prohibitions against terumah (and any other substances which are also called terumah) are lifted when it becomes mixed with 100 times their amount of other substances and similarly, the prohibitions against orlah andkilai hakerem are lifted when these substances are mixed with 200 times their amount of other substances.
Because of the serious nature of the prohibition against idol worship, these principles do not apply and anything connected with it is forbidden, regardless of the proportion of the mixture the forbidden substances make up. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 5:8.)
What is implied? If an idol becomes mixed together with statues made for aesthetic purposes - which are permitted
even if the proportion is merely one in several thousand - the entire group must be taken to the Dead Sea - i.e., it is forbidden to benefit from them and they must be destroyed.
Similarly, if a goblet [used for] idol worship - i.e., an accessory of idol worship
becomes mixed together with many other - identical
goblets - Needless to say, if one can distinguish between the forbidden goblet and the permitted ones, there is no reason to forbid the use of the permitted ones.
or a piece of meat [coming from a sacrifice to a false deity] becomes mixed with other meat - See the following halachah.
the entire group must be taken to the Dead Sea. - TheLechem Mishneh (noting the Rambam's statements, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot16:29) questions why in this instance, the Rambam does not suggest that the entire mixture be sold to a gentile, and then, the value of the forbidden article destroyed. This question is discussed by many commentaries; their consensus is that, although such a provision is made regarding closed barrels of yayin nesech, it applies in that specific case alone, but not with regard to other instances.
Similarly, if a hide with a hole through which the heart was removed - i.e., a round hole, as mentioned in Halachah 3. This was one of the common practices of idol worship.
becomes mixed with other hides, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire mixture - and it must be destroyed.
[When] a person - i.e., a Jew. Different laws apply regarding a gentile. (See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 132:7, 144:1.)
transgresses and sells a false deity, one of its accessories, or an object that was offered to it - The sale is forbidden, because it is forbidden to derive any benefit from a false deity. This prohibition is unique; whenever one sells other forbidden substances (with the exception of the fruits of the seventh year), the fact that their sale was forbidden does not affect the status of the money received for them. In contrast, when selling anything forbidden because of idol worship
it is forbidden to benefit from the money received - Rather, the money must be destroyed, like the idols themselves. If the proceeds from the sale or exchange of an idol are used to acquire another object, that object is also forbidden. See Chapter 8, Halachah 1.
and that prohibition [remains if these funds become mixed with others] regardless of the proportion [of the mixture] they make up. -i.e., the same severe restrictions that would apply to an idol itself, apply to the money received from its sale.
This principle is derived as follows:
[Deuteronomy 7:26] states: - "Do not bring an abomination (an idol) into your house...
"Lest you become condemned like it." [From this - The Hebrew word והיה
we - Avodah Zarah 54b
infer] that anything that comes - into your possession
from a false deity, from any of its accessories, or from [anything] offered to it - See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 132:5-7, which elaborates on this concept with regard to the laws pertaining to yayin nesech.
is [governed by the same prohibitions] as it is. - Note the commentary of Mishneh LaMelech, which questions whether the same ruling would be rendered if the purchaser did not know that the article which he acquired is connected with a false deity. Mishneh LaMelech maintains that the transaction is nullified, and the money the seller receives must be returned to the purchaser.
Commentary Halacha
When a false deity or an asherah - For a definition of the term asherah, see Chapter 6, Halachah 9, and see the following halachah.
is burned, it is forbidden to benefit from its ashes. - Ash was used for certain purposes - e.g., the manufacture of soap.
Although the idol was destroyed, the prohibition that applied to it applies to its ashes as well. (For this reason, our Sages suggested taking idols to the Dead Sea. Since this is a desolate area, there is little likelihood that anyone will ever benefit from the idols.)
Temurah 34a notes that this prohibition differentiates substances associated with idols from other forbidden substances that must be burned.
A coal taken from - a fire which is lit as an act of service to
an idol - is considered to be an accessory of the idol. It
is forbidden - to be used for any other purpose.
a flame [from an idol] is permitted, - to be used - e.g., to light another flame
for it is not an entity with substance - i.e., there is no entity to which the prohibition can be attached. Although as a safeguard, the Rabbis forbade the use of certain flames, they did not pass such a decree against flames from idol worship. In general, Jews were repelled by any association with idol worship. Hence, the Rabbis did not feel that it was necessary to institute a prohibition (Beitzah 39a).
When there is a doubt whether an object is connected to idol worship or not, it is forbidden. - When there is a doubt regarding whether a substance is prohibited or not, we follow the principle that מדאורייתא (according to Torah law), it is permitted. מדרבנן (according to Rabbinic decree), it is forbidden.
If, however, that doubt is questionable - The Hebrew, 18קפס אקיפס, implies that there is a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply, as illustrated by the examples mentioned in the latter clauses of the halachah.
The prohibition against benefiting from an object whose prohibited status is in question is only Rabbinic in nature. Whenever there is a doubt regarding whether a Rabbinic prohibition applies or not, a lenient approach is permitted (ספק דרבנן לקולא).
it is permitted. - For the Rabbis did not feel it necessary to institute a decree in such an instance.
What is implied? Should a goblet used for idol worship - i.e., an accessory of idol worship, which is forbidden, as mentioned in the previous halachah.
fall into a storage room of - identical
goblets, they are all forbidden, because a false deity and all its accessories are always forbidden, regardless of the proportion [of a mixture they make up]. - Since there is a doubt whether each of the goblets is the forbidden one or not, none of them may be used.
If one of the cups from this mixture falls together with two - This translation follows the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah, which reads כוסות שנים. The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1406) suggests (and indeed, many manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah support this contention) that the text read כוסות שניים, which would be rendered as "other cups." This version is closer to the text of Zevachim 74a, the Talmudic passage that serves as the source for this law.
other cups - Here, there is a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply. Perhaps the cup one chooses from the new mixture did not come from the original mixture. Even if it did come from the original mixture, perhaps it is not the cup that was used for idol worship.
the [entire second mixture] is permitted. - The Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries question the Rambam's decision, noting that the text of Zevachim, ibid., appears to indicate that it is necessary for there to be three mixtures. Indeed, in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:10, when discussing the prohibitions of a דבר חשוב (a forbidden substance whose importance prevents it from ever being nullified in a mixture), the Rambam himself appears to follow this view, stating:
If one pomegranate from a mixture [containing a forbidden pomegranate] falls together with two other pomegranates... and from these three, one pomegranate falls together with other pomegranates, the latter [mixture] is permitted.
Indeed, on the basis of the statements in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, theShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 140) deviates from the Rambam's opinion and requires three mixtures.
This approach, however, is not followed by all commentaries. Rashi andTosafot (Zevachim, ibid.) explain that even with regard to a דבר חשוב, only two mixtures are necessary. These views are quoted as halachah by the Turei Zahav and the Siftei Cohen in their glosses on the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 110:8).
Among the suggestions made by the commentaries to resolve the difference between the Rambam's statements here and those in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot are the following:
a) Most people are careful regarding the prohibition against benefiting from any object connected with idol worship. Therefore, there is no need to reinforce the prohibition. In contrast, the prohibition against benefiting from a דבר חשוב is far less known. Hence, the Rabbis added severe safeguards to make sure that it be observed (Kessef Mishneh).
b) Here, the Rambam is speaking about a prohibition against benefiting from a forbidden object (איסור הנאה). In contrast, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot is concerned with partaking of forbidden foods, where the prohibition is more severe (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 110:52).
a) Most people are careful regarding the prohibition against benefiting from any object connected with idol worship. Therefore, there is no need to reinforce the prohibition. In contrast, the prohibition against benefiting from a דבר חשוב is far less known. Hence, the Rabbis added severe safeguards to make sure that it be observed (Kessef Mishneh).
b) Here, the Rambam is speaking about a prohibition against benefiting from a forbidden object (איסור הנאה). In contrast, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot is concerned with partaking of forbidden foods, where the prohibition is more severe (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 110:52).
Even the authorities who permit the second mixture to be used do not allow a single individual to partake of the entire mixture at one time. In such an instance, there would be only a single doubt whether he used the forbidden object or not.
The Rabbis (Zevachim, 74b) mentioned another example of a mixture which is permitted because of circumstances which create a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply:
Should a ring [used to adorn] an idol become mixed together with one hundred other rings, and - they would thus all be forbidden according to the above principles. However, if
then two of them fall - accidentally. If one intentionally throws one into the sea, the leniency does not apply (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah110:7).
into the Mediterranean Sea - and are thus lost. If two merely become separated from the group, the others remain prohibited (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.). (Note the Kessef Mishneh's comments that here, the Dead Sea is intended.)
it is permissible to use all of them. - i.e., all the rings that remain. The prohibition does not continue to apply, because
We presume that the [forbidden] ring was among the two - TheKessef Mishneh notes that when stating a similar law in Hilchot Terumah15:2, the Rambam required only a single barrel of wine to be lost. The difference between these two laws can be resolved by taking into account the nature of the prohibited substances: Rings are small, and the loss of a single ring does not make a substantial difference to the entire group. In contrast, barrels of wine are large, and the loss of even one will attract attention.
[which fell]. - The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 140) limits this leniency, stating that it is forbidden to use a single ring alone, nor may one person benefit from the entire group of rings at once.
The Rabbis (Zevachim, ibid.) mentioned a third example of a mixture which is permitted because of circumstances which create a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply:
Should [a forbidden ring] become mixed together with a hundred others and - they would thus be forbidden according to the above principles. However, if
then [the group] becomes divided, forty - i.e., the minority
being separated in one group, and sixty - i.e., the majority
in another, and then the entire [group of] forty fall into another group of rings, it is permissible to use all of them - the second mixture.
We presume that the forbidden ring remained among the majority. -There is a doubt whether the forbidden ring was among the forty. Even if it had been included within that forty, perhaps the ring one chooses from the second mixture is not the forbidden one.
In this instance, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 140) does not accept the Rambam's view, and forbids the second mixture. Even according to the Rambam, it is not permissible to eat the entire second mixture at one time, for then there would be only a single doubt.
If the - entire
[group of] sixty fall into another group of rings, they are all forbidden. - Should, however, only a portion of the sixty fall into another mixture, the Rambam (but not the Shulchan Aruch) would permit their use. In such an instance, their status would parallel that of the second mixture of goblets mentioned above.
Commentary Halacha
Sitting under the shade of the trunk of an asherah - a tree associated with the worship of false deities
whether it is worshiped itself - as mentioned in Chapter 8, Halachah 3.
or whether an idol was placed under it - as mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 9, and Chapter 8, Halachah 4. In such instances, the tree was intended for aesthetic purposes and for offering shade to the worshipers.
is forbidden - because one will be deriving benefit from a false deity or its accessories.
It is, however, permissible to sit under the shade of its branches and its leaves. - This decision has been questioned by other authorities, who wonder why the Rambam distinguished between the tree's trunk and branches. On the surface, the same prohibition should apply to both of them.
The Rambam's decision is based on his interpretation of Avodah Zarah48b, which is derived from the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3:8). The Talmud explains that even though the shade of an asherah is forbidden, צל הצל, literally, "the shade of its shade," is permitted. The Jerusalem Talmud interprets 18לצ לצה as shade produced by the parts of the tree which would not touch the trunk if they fell.
[Rashi offers a different interpretation of Avodah Zarah, ibid. His view is accepted by most commentaries. When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 142:9) does not differentiate between the shade produced by the trunk and that of its leaves.
If a person has another route - to reach his desired destination, which is no longer than the one which passes under the asherah. If the alternate route is longer, the person is not required to deviate from the path leading under the asherah (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.).
it is forbidden for him to pass under it. - This prohibition appears to have been instituted lest one benefit from the tree's shade. Note, however, the Ramah's statements (Yoreh De'ah, ibid.), which permit one to pass under the asherah's shade, though not under the tree itself. According to his opinion, the prohibition stems from the impurity of idol worship.
If he has no other route, he may pass under it, provided he runs -Avodah Zarah (ibid.) relates that Rav Sheshet would run when he passed under an asherah. This Talmudic passage mentions the requirement to run only with regard to a person of distinction. Nevertheless, since there is no great difficulty in running for this short distance, the Rambam imposes this stringency on all people (Kessef Mishneh).
Commentary Halacha
Chicks which do not need their mother - i.e., which can fly on their own
and nest in [an asherah] are permitted. - Even though these chicks are permitted, Me'ilah 14a does not allow one to climb up the tree and take them in a normal manner. Rather, one must knock the chicks down with a stave, and then collect them. The Hagahot Maimoniot (and theTurei Zahav, Yoreh De'ah 142:12) explain that climbing on the tree or using it as support for a ladder would involve deriving benefit from the forbidden tree.
The Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Me'ilah 3:9, suggests a different interpretation. There, the Rambam specifically writes that when taking the nest - as stated in the final clause of this halachah - it permissible to climb up the tree in the normal manner. Therefore, it appears that one should knock down the chicks to see if they are capable of flying on their own or not. This explanation also clarifies why the Rambam does not mention in this halachah the need to knock down the chicks. By stating that only those which do not need their mother are permitted, he implies that one must determine whether or not the chicks need their mother (Rav Kapach).
In contrast, the chicks and eggs which need their mother are forbidden, for the asherah is considered as if it is a base for them. -Avodah Zarah 42b explains that this is a Rabbinic decree imposed lest the people desire to benefit from the asherah itself. Since these chicks and eggs require the asherah, they are prohibited as theasherah is.
The nest itself - [even though it is] in the top of the tree - is permitted, - and the wood from which it is composed may be used for other purposes
for the birds bring the wood for it from other places. - Were the wood, however, to come from the asherah itself, it would be forbidden even though it had been separated from it already, as is obvious from Chapter 8, Halachah 3.
The Ra'avad states that one must explicitly know that the birds built their nest from other wood. Avodat HaMelech explains that the Rambam does not require such knowledge, because of the following Talmud principle: When there is a question whether a substance came from the most probable source (רוב) or the closest source (קרוב), we presume it came from the most probable source.
Commentary Halacha
It is forbidden to benefit from wood which one takes from it. - i.e., from anasherah. Even though the wood has been separated from the tree itself, it is forbidden to benefit from the wood. (See Chapter 8, Halachot 1,3, and 4 for additional explanations regarding the nature of this prohibition.)
This prohibition applies not merely לכתחילה (a priori), but even in the following instance.
Should a person have heated an oven with such wood - and thus seek to benefit from the forbidden wood, he is not permitted to use the oven. Rather,
he must cool it off. - Note the contrast between the Rambam's statements here and those in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:22, where the Rambam states that if an oven is heated with the shells or peels of fruit which is forbidden (because it is either orlah or kil'ei hakerem), it is sufficient to remove the wood which is burning. The coals and the heat produced by the initial fire, however, are not forbidden and one may bake with them. He does not make such statements here, because, as stated in Halachah 10, even the coals and ashes of an asherah are forbidden.
[Curiously, when mentioning these laws in the Shulchan Aruch (142:4), Rav Yosef Karo quotes the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, substituting forbidden wood for orlah, without distinguishing between the different prohibitions. Accordingly the commentaries on theShulchan Aruch (Turei Zahav 145:5, Siftei Cohen 145:10) object to his decision.]
Afterwards, he should - remove the forbidden wood and
kindle it with other, permitted wood and then bake within. - In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:9), the Rambam explains that the above decision applies whether the oven is new or old.
The Mishnah states that if such wood is used in a new oven, the oven may never be used again. In Talmudic times, the ovens were made of clay and the clay would not harden sufficiently until the oven was kindled once. Thus, since kindling the oven for the first time prepared it to be used on all subsequent occasions, some Rabbis forbade its use when this first kindling was made with a forbidden substance. This opinion is, nevertheless, not accepted as halachah. The Rambam's view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, ibid. (See the explanation of זה וזה גורם in the following halachah.)
Furthermore, this prohibition is extended beyond the oven:
Should he bake bread in [an oven heated in this manner] without cooling it - even if, afterwards, he added permitted wood
he is forbidden to benefit from the bread - because the beneficial effect of the forbidden wood preceded the influence of the permitted wood.
If [such a loaf] became mixed together with others - the entire mixture is forbidden. He can, however, cause that prohibition to be lifted if he carries out the following instructions.
[This mixture of bread can be differentiated from the mixtures mentioned in Halachah 10. Those mixtures involved objects which were themselves used as accessories for idol worship, while here the loaf itself was never used for such purposes. Hence, the severe laws mentioned there do not apply in this instance.]
he must bring the value of that loaf - even if it is more valuable than the wood (Siftei Cohen 142:9).
to the Dead Sea - or destroy it in another way (see the notes on Halachah 5)
so that he will never benefit from it. - The Siftei Cohen 142:8 states that the Rambam's [and, thus, the Shulchan Aruch's (Yoreh De'ah142:3)] phraseology implies that it is not sufficient to destroy the value of the wood (regardless of whether the forbidden loaf becomes mixed with others or not). He does, however, suggest selling the loaf to a gentile (less the value of the forbidden wood) in a manner in which one could be sure that it would not be resold to a Jew.
The other loaves, however, are permitted - even to be eaten. In other similar situations, one is permitted to benefit from a forbidden mixture (e.g., sell it to a gentile), but partaking of it oneself is prohibited. (SeeHilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:29.) Here, one is allowed to partake of the bread itself (Siftei Cohen 142:10).
Commentary Halacha
If one took [a piece of wood from an asherah to use as] a shuttle -the piece of the loom which passes the woof through the threads of the warp.
and wove a garment with it, it is forbidden to benefit from [the garment] - because it is prohibited to use anything made from idol worship.
Should the garment become mixed together with other garments, he must bring the value of that garment to the Dead Sea. - Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:9), where he explains why it is necessary to state both cases (the bread and the garment).
All the other garments, however, are permitted - as explained in the previous halachah. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 142:3.)
It is permissible - 18הליחתכל (a priori)
to plant vegetables under [an asherah], whether in the summer - when they need the shade - and thus, one will receive direct benefit from the asherah
or in the winter - when the influence of the asherah is less felt.
[This leniency is granted] because the vegetables' growth is produced by two factors: the shade of the asherah, which is forbidden, and the earth, which is permitted. - We follow a principle that is employed in many other areas of Torah law:
Whenever an effect is produced by the combination of a forbidden factor and a permitted factor, it is permitted. - In such instances, the leniency is generally granted only בדיעבד (after the fact). In this situation, however, the leniency is granted a priori, because the person does not receive any benefit when he sows the field and, afterwards, the benefit comes in and of itself (Rabbenu Nissim).
Therefore, if a field was fertilized with fertilizer [that was forbidden because of a connection with] idol worship, one may sow it -because the crop growth also depends on the earth, which is not forbidden. At the outset, however, it is forbidden to use such fertilizer (Siftei Cohen 142:11).
Similarly, [the meat of] a cow that was fed with beans - The Hebrew term כרשינים refers to "vetch," a species of bean commonly used for animal fodder.
[that were forbidden because of a connection with] idol worship, it may be eaten - because its growth was also influenced by the permitted food it ate. If, however, it was raised solely on forbidden food, different rules apply (Turei Zahav 142:17).
[Significantly, in Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 3:9, the Rambam feels it necessary to give a different reason why a cow that was given such a diet might be used as a sacrifice. The Sages, however, always ruled more stringently with regard to sacrifices than with regard to food consumed by private individuals.]
The same principle applies in other similar situations.
Commentary Halacha
It is not forbidden to benefit from meat, wine, and fruits that were prepared as offerings for idols. - This law reflects a contrast to the Temple offerings. Once a person dedicated an animal to be offered as a sacrifice, or an article to be donated to the Temple treasury, it became consecrated (הקדש) and could no longer be used for mundane purposes. This principle does not apply with regard to articles designated to be used as offerings for idols, as explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 1.
Although they were brought into the temple of a false deity, [they are not prohibited] until they are actually brought as offerings. -However, as is obvious from the latter clause of this halachah, an object found in a temple of a false deity is forbidden, unless we have explicit knowledge that it was not brought as an offering. We assume that it was used for this forbidden purpose.
Once they are brought as offerings, [their status changes] and they remain forbidden - as stated in Halachah 2
forever, - Avodat HaMelech interprets this as a reference to Chapter 8, Halachah 9, where the Rambam states that the prohibition against using an offering brought to an idol can never be nullified. Although the prohibition against using an idol itself can be nullified, more stringent rules apply with regard to an offering.
even if they were later removed [from the temple]. - The change in their location does not effect a change in status.
Torah law - not merely Rabbinic decree
forbids benefiting from anything that is found in a temple of a false deity, even water or salt. - See the following halachah. (Also noteShulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 139:3.)
If a person eats even the slightest amount from such substances, he is [punished by] lashing. - Note Halachah 2, where the Rambam states that a person who benefits from offerings brought to a false deity receives a double measure of lashes. Apparently, the Rambam is not explicit here because he is relying on this previous statement.
Commentary Halacha
[The following laws apply when] a person finds garments, utensils, or money [placed] on the head of an idol. - Avodah Zarah 51b states that the prohibition applies only when the articles are placed on the idol itself. The fact that they are positioned near the idol is not sufficient to have them forbidden.
If he finds them [placed] in a derisive manner, they are permitted -because the manner in which they are placed indicates that they were not intended as adornment or service for the idol.
If he finds them [placed] in a deferential manner, they are forbidden. - Avodah Zarah, ibid., derives this concept from the exegesis ofDeuteronomy 29:16: "You saw their putridities (their idols)... the gold and silver which is with them," explaining that "anything which is 'with them' is 'putrid,' forbidden as the idols are. Since these are articles that are used to adorn an idol, they are prohibited.
What is implied? If one finds a purse hanging around its neck, folded garments placed on its head, or a utensil overturned on its head, they are permitted, because [they were placed] in a derisive manner. - The position of the article indicates that it was not placed there with the intent of adorning the idol. On the contrary, placing these articles on an idol in such a fashion reflects one's contempt for it. Therefore, there is no reason for the article to be forbidden.
The same applies to other similar situations. [In contrast,] if one finds an object of a type which is used as an offering for the [Temple] altar - This includes the animals used as sacrifices, wine, flour, or oil. Avodah Zarah 51b notes that this prohibition includes even water, which is used for the water libation on Sukkot, and salt, which is added to all the sacrifices offered on the altar.
on the head [of an idol], it is forbidden. - The fact that these articles are used as offerings in the Temple leads to the conclusion that they were presented to the idol for a similar purpose.
When does the above - distinction between a deferential and a derisive position
apply? When one finds such articles outside its - the idol's
[usual] place of worship. When, however, one finds such articles within the [idol's place of worship] - The fact that the article was brought into the idol's temple indicates that it was used in its service. Accordingly,
regardless of whether it was placed in a derisive manner or in a deferential manner, or whether it is of the type of objects used as sacrifices for the [Temple] altar, any article found within [such a structure] - even if it is not placed upon the idol itself
even water or salt - The Rambam's mention of these articles is somewhat problematic. Since they were offered on the Temple altar, as explained above, they are forbidden even if they are not found within the temple of an idol. The commentaries explain that since these articles are of little consequence and are not generally themselves brought as offerings to an idol, we would not think that they were forbidden. Therefore, it is necessary to mention them explicitly.
becomes forbidden. - Note Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ot 6:7, where the Rambam states that the forbidden nature of foods offered to idols can never be negated. When, however, utensils are offered, the prohibition against using them can be negated, as explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 8.
[Different laws apply regarding] Pe'or and Marculis. - See the description of the service of these deities in Chapter 3, Halachah 2.
It is forbidden to benefit from anything that is found together with them, whether [it is found] in their [temple] or outside of it. - Since these deities are served in a derisive manner, no distinction is made between the manner in which articles placed upon them are found. Even when an article is found in a derisive position, it is forbidden.
Similarly, with regard to the stones [found near a symbol of] Marculis: If a stone appears to be together with it - Since a shrine to this deity consists of stones piled on each other, we assume that any stone found in proximity to it was once part of such a pile. Hence,
it is forbidden to benefit from it. - Rashi, Avodah Zarah 50a states that all stones within a cubit of the deity are forbidden. Stones which are further removed are permitted. Tosafot maintains that any stones found within a radius of four cubits are forbidden.
Commentary Halacha
When [the shrine of] a false deity possesses a bathhouse or a garden, benefit may be derived from it, provided one does not offer appreciation - We have rendered טובה as "appreciation" because, as evident from the final clause of the halachah, the benefit mentioned by the Rambam is not monetary or even goods that can be exchanged for money (Kessef Mishneh).
[Thus, the Rambam's interpretation differs from that of Rashi, who, in his commentary on Avodah Zarah 51b, understands טובה as referring to monetary payment.]
[in return]. - Our translation follows the standard published texts of theMishneh Torah. The manuscript versions read: "provided one does not offer benefit to its priests." This version is supported by the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:3). If the benefit is offered to the idol's worshipers and not to its priests, one may make use of the bathhouse or garden even if it is necessary to pay a fee (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 143:3).
[If] one must offer appreciation, it is forbidden. - The Kessef Mishnehexplains that this prohibition was instituted lest a person develop close feelings towards the priests who serve a false deity.
[If the garden or bathhouse] is mutually owned by [the shrine] and another entity, one may derive benefit from it - and one is not considered to have benefited from a false deity,since the bathhouse or garden is not itself a shrine
even if one provides its priests with appreciation. - The commentaries explain that since the prohibition is Rabbinic in nature (because it is appreciation and not a fee which is being offered), if the appreciation is not being given solely to the priests, the Rabbis did not feel it necessary to impose a prohibition.
One may not, however, pay a fee - because doing so provides direct benefit to the false deity.
This prohibition caused severe problems in Europe, where frequently many of the community services necessary for everyday life - e.g., flour mills, ovens, and the like - were owned by the Catholic Church. The rabbinic authorities of these areas interpreted these laws more leniently, offering different explanations of how one could benefit from church-owned property. (See Ramah and the Turei Zahav, Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) All authorities, however, agree that if a fee must be paid to the false deity itself and not to its attendants, no benefit is permitted.
Commentary Halacha
It is permitted to bathe in a bathhouse even though an idol is located within - This halachah is based on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah3:4, which relates:
Rabban Gamliel was bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite (the Greek goddess of beauty) in Akko, and Praclus ben Paluslus asked him: "Why are you bathing in Aphrodite's bathhouse? Does your Torah not command: 'Let nothing which is condemned cling to your hand'?
He responded: "One does not reply in a bathhouse." After he had departed, he told him, "I did not come into her territory, she came into mine. One does not say, 'This bathhouse is becoming to Aphrodite.' One says, 'Aphrodite is becoming to the bathhouse.' Furthermore, no matter how much money you were offered, you would not enter your idol's temple naked... and urinate before it." (The mishnah continues, mentioning the interpretation of Deuteronomy 12:2 quoted by the Rambam.)
He responded: "One does not reply in a bathhouse." After he had departed, he told him, "I did not come into her territory, she came into mine. One does not say, 'This bathhouse is becoming to Aphrodite.' One says, 'Aphrodite is becoming to the bathhouse.' Furthermore, no matter how much money you were offered, you would not enter your idol's temple naked... and urinate before it." (The mishnah continues, mentioning the interpretation of Deuteronomy 12:2 quoted by the Rambam.)
[Significantly, Rashi (Avodah Zarah 44b) interprets the mishnah differently from the Rambam. They explain that rather than the idol being located within the bathhouse, the bathhouse was located within premises belonging to the idol.]
because it is placed there for aesthetic purposes and not to be served. - This is the Rambam's interpretation of Rabban Gamliel's first point. He did not enter a place where the statue was served (Aphrodite's territory). Rather, he entered a bathhouse (his territory) where a statue had been placed as an adornment.
[The Rambam's interpretation is also found in the Tosafot Rid and theEshkol. Rashi and others interpret Rabban Gamliel's statements differently.]
[This leniency can be inferred from the use by Deuteronomy 12:2 of the term:] "their gods" - when describing the commandment to nullify idol worship
i.e., the prohibition applies when they - the gentiles
treat them - their statues
as gods, and not when they humiliate them, such as in an instance where [the idol] stands over the sewage pipe and they urinate before it. - Avodah Zarah 44b clarifies that the performance of a humiliating act before an idol does not necessarily nullify its forbidden character. (See Chapter 8, Halachah 10.) Nevertheless, since an idol placed in a bathhouse is constantly subjected to deprecating situations, we can assume that the gentiles do not regard it as a god.
Should [the idol's] worship involve such activities - As explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 2, there are some idols which are worshiped in a deprecatory manner - e.g., Pe'or, whose worshipers would defecate before it.
it is forbidden to enter [the bathhouse]. - As explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 5, even when a person performs these activities with the intent of humiliating the idol, since this is its mode of worship, he is considered to have inadvertently violated the commandment against idol worship, and is obligated to bring a sin offering for atonement.
Commentary Halacha
It is permitted to benefit - The Kessef Mishneh interprets the Rambam's phraseology as implying that although, after the fact, the meat is not forbidden, at the outset (לכתחילה), it is forbidden to slaughter an animal with such a knife. Other authorities, however, do not share this opinion, and maintain that there is no prohibition against using such a knife. (See Ramah, Yoreh De'ah 142:2 and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, 10:1, which accept the latter view as halachah.)
from [an animal] slaughtered using a knife [forbidden because of its connection to] idol worship] - Chulin 8b clarifies that we are speaking about an instance where the knife has already been kashered, and thus, the only question involves benefiting from an accessory of idol worship. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:7, the Rambam discusses the process of kashering the knife and what must be done if the knife was used without being kashered. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, ibid.)
because one is detracting from [the animal's] value. - While an animal is alive, it can be used for work and for breeding, and is therefore of greater value.
If the animal is in danger [of dying], it is forbidden, because one is enhancing its value - If the animal dies naturally, a Jew will not be permitted to eat its meat. Thus, the animal's slaughter enhances its value.
and this improvement involves benefit from an accessory of idol worship. - Hence, it is forbidden, as stated in Halachah 2. The Kessef Mishneh states that, based on Halachot 12 and 13, it would appear that the Rambam maintains that all the meat from the animal is forbidden, and there is no way one may benefit from it. The Kessef Mishneh does not accept that view, and argues that it is sufficient to destroy an amount of meat equivalent to the value of the knife.
Similarly, it is forbidden to cut meat - i.e., cut large pieces of meat into smaller ones
with [such a knife], because one is enhancing its value - making it fit to be sold or cooked. The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 142:6) relates that if one cut pieces of meat with such a knife, even the Rambam would not forbid use of the meat entirely. It would be necessary, however, to destroy an amount of meat equivalent to the value of the knife.
Should one cut with a destructive intent, causing a loss - e.g., cut pieces which are of a size fit for cooking into smaller ones, which would be less attractive. See Chulin 8b.
the meat is permitted - because no benefit was derived from an accessory of an idol. On the contrary, a loss was caused.
Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Eight
Halacha 1
It is permitted to derive benefit from anything that has not been manipulated by man or that was not made by man, even though it was worshiped [as a deity]. Therefore, it is permitted to benefit from mountains, hills, trees - provided they were planted originally with the intent of harvesting their fruit - springs which provide water for many people, and animals, despite their having been worshiped by pagans. It is permitted to partake of fruits that were worshiped in the place where they grow and to partake of such an animal.
Needless to say, it is permitted to partake of an animal that was set aside for the purpose of idol worship. It is permitted regardless of whether it was set aside to be worshiped or to be sacrificed [to another deity].
When do the above statements permitting the use of an animal apply? When a deed involving it was not committed for the sake of idol worship. If, however, any deed whatsoever was committed involving it, it is forbidden; for example, one cut one of its signs for the sake of an idol. Should one exchange it for an idol, it is forbidden. Similarly, it is forbidden if it was exchanged for an article that was itself exchanged for an idol, since the latter article is considered to be "payment for an idol."
When does the above apply? Regarding one's own animal. If, however, one slaughtered a colleague's animal for the sake of a false deity, or exchanged it for an idol, it does not become forbidden, because a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to become forbidden.
When a person bows down to virgin earth, he does not cause it to become forbidden. If he digs pits, channels, and caverns in it for the sake of a false deity, it becomes forbidden.
Halacha 2
When a person bows down to water which was lifted up by a wave, he does not cause [the water] to become forbidden. If, however, he picked [water] up with his hands and bowed down to it, it becomes forbidden.
If rocks which had slid down from a mountain were worshiped in the place where they [landed], they are permitted, since they were not manipulated by man.
Halacha 3
When a Jew stands a brick up with the intention of bowing down to it, but does not bow down to it, and then a gentile comes and bows down to it, benefit from [the brick] becomes forbidden, because standing it up is considered to be a deed. Similarly, if he stands an egg up and a gentile comes and bows down to it, it becomes forbidden.
If one cuts off a gourd or the like and bows down to it, it is forbidden. Even when one bows down to only half the gourd, and the other half is still attached to it, it is forbidden because of the doubt involved: perhaps the second half is considered to be a handle for the half which was worshiped.
It is forbidden to benefit from a tree which was planted for the purpose of being worshiped. This is the asherah that the Torah mentions. When a tree which had been planted previously was pruned and carved for the sake of idol worship - even if it was extended or a growth was grafted onto the trunk of the tree - and branches grew, one must cut off [these] branches, and benefit from them is forbidden. The remainder of the tree, however, is permitted.
Similarly, when a person bows down to a tree, even though the tree itself is not forbidden, it is forbidden to benefit from all the branches, leaves, sprouts, and fruits which it produces during the time it is worshiped.
When gentiles guard the fruits of a tree and say that they are designated to be used to make alcoholic beverages for a particular pagan temple, and [the fruits] are used for alcoholic beverages which are drunken on their pagan holidays, it is forbidden to benefit from this tree. This is the ritual associated with an asherah. Accordingly, we can assume that [the tree] is an asherah, and therefore its fruits will be used for such purposes.
Halacha 4
[The following rules apply to] a tree under which a false deity was placed: It is forbidden to benefit from it as long as the deity is located under it. When it is removed, we are permitted [to benefit] from it, since the tree itself is not the entity which was worshiped.
When a gentile constructs a building with the intention that the building itself be worshiped, and, similarly, when a person bows down to a building that has already been constructed, they become forbidden.
When a [building] which had already been constructed, was plastered and embellished for the sake of worship to the extent that it is considered to be a new entity, one must remove all the new additions, and it is forbidden to benefit from them, since they were made with the intention of being worshiped. It is, however, permitted to benefit from the remainder of the building.
If one placed an idol within a house, it is forbidden to benefit from the house while the idol is located within. When it is removed, the house becomes permitted.
Similarly, it is forbidden to benefit from a stone which was hewn from a mountain with the intention that it be worshiped. If it had already been hewn out, but was adorned and embellished with the intention that it be worshiped - even if the stone itself was adorned and embellished and, needless to say, if the adornment was added to it - one must remove all the new additions, and it is forbidden to benefit from them, since they were made with the intention of being worshiped. It is, however, permitted to benefit from the remainder of the stone.
Halacha 5
A stone on which an idol is placed is forbidden as long as the idol is upon it. Once [the idol] is removed, it is permitted.
When a person's house which is located next to [a shrine of] an idol falls, it is forbidden for him to rebuild it. What must he do? He must move [the wall] within his own four cubits, and then rebuild it. The empty space must not be left free for the sake of the shrine of the idol. Rather, he should fill it with thorns or feces.
If the wall belonged jointly to both a private individual and an idol, it should be considered to belong to them equally. It is permitted to benefit from his half; the [half] belonging to the idol, however, is forbidden. [Similarly,] it is forbidden to benefit from all [the wall's] stones, beams, and earth.
Halacha 6
How must one destroy a false deity and the other entities which are forbidden on its account - e.g., its accessories and offerings? One must grind them and scatter [the dust] in the wind, or burn them and deposit the ashes in the Dead Sea.
Halacha 7
Although [as mentioned above,] an entity which cannot be manipulated by man - e.g., a mountain, animal, or tree - even when worshiped remains permitted, it is forbidden to benefit from its coatings. A person who derives any benefit from them whatsoever is [liable for] lashes, as [Deuteronomy 7:25] states: "Do not desire the silver and gold which are upon them."
Any coating of a false deity is considered to be one of its accessories.
Halacha 8
It is permitted to benefit from a false deity belonging to a gentile whose deification was nullified [by gentiles] before it entered the possession of a Jew, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states, "You must burn the statues of their gods with fire." [This command applies] only if they are treated as gods when they enter our possession. If, however, their deification was nullified, they are permitted.
Halacha 9
A false deity belonging to a Jew can never be nullified. Even if he owns it in partnership with a gentile, its nullification is of no consequence. Rather, it is forbidden to benefit from it forever, and it must be entombed.
Similarly, when a false deity belonging to a gentile enters the possession of a Jew, and then is nullified by a gentile, the nullification is of no consequence, and it is forbidden to benefit from it forever.
A Jew cannot nullify a false deity even when it is in the possession of a gentile. A gentile who is a minor or a fool cannot nullify a false deity. When a gentile is forced to nullify a false deity - whether it belongs to him or to other gentiles, even when he is forced to do so by Jews - the nullification is of consequence.
The gentile who nullifies idol worship must himself be an idolater. If he is not an idolater, his nullification is of no consequence.
When [a gentile] nullifies a false deity, he also nullifies [the connection to idol worship of] its accessories. When he nullifies [the connection to idol worship of] its accessories, it is permitted to benefit from the accessories. [The deity] itself, however, remains forbidden until it is nullified. [The connection to idol worship of] an object that was brought to an idol as an offering can never be nullified.
Halacha 10
How is [an idol] nullified? When one cuts off the tip of its nose, the tip of its ear, or the tip of its finger, smoothes out its face - even though none of its substance was destroyed - or sells it to a Jewish jeweler, it is nullified.
If, however, one gave it as security for a loan, sold it to a gentile, [sold it] to a Jew who is not a jeweler, [left it] after it was covered by fallen articles without removing them, did not demand its return after it was stolen by thieves, spat in its face, urinated upon it, dragged it [in mud], or threw feces upon it, it is not nullified.
Halacha 11
When a false deity was abandoned by its worshipers in a time of peace, it is apparent that they nullified it. Hence, benefit may be derived from it. [If it was abandoned] in a time of war, it is forbidden. The only reason they abandoned it was the war.
When a false deity becomes broken in the course of nature, it is forbidden to benefit from its broken pieces until they have been nullified. Accordingly, when a person finds broken pieces of an idol, [he must regard them] as forbidden, lest the gentiles have not nullified them.
[The following principles apply to an idol] which comes in pieces: If it could be reassembled by an ordinary person, each piece must be nullified individually. If [an ordinary person] could not reassemble it, once one has nullified one of its limbs, all of them are nullified.
Halacha 12
Though an altar for idol worship has been damaged, it is still forbidden to benefit from it until the majority of it has been destroyed by gentiles. A platform which has been damaged is permitted.
What is considered a platform, and what, an altar? A platform consists of a single stone; an altar, of many stones.
How are the stones of Marculis nullified? When one constructs a building from them or uses them to pave the roads or the like, it is permitted to benefit from them.
How is an asherah nullified? When one pulls off a leaf, cuts off a branch, takes a staff or scepter from it, or planes off its sides in a manner which does not benefit it, it is nullified. When one planes its sides in a manner which benefits it, it is forbidden, but its shavings are permitted.
If [the sides of] an asherah which belongs to a Jew [are planed off], both it and its shavings are forbidden forever, regardless of whether [it was planed] for its benefit or not, because a false deity belonging to a Jew can never be nullified.
Commentary Halacha
It is permitted to derive benefit from anything that has not been manipulated by man or that was not made by man - Idol worship is a human error. Hence, an object whose existence is not dependent on man cannot become forbidden because of it.
even though it was worshiped [as a deity]. - Although generally, it is forbidden to benefit from any entity worshiped as a false deity, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, this law does not apply in such instances.
Therefore, it is permitted to benefit from mountains, hills, trees -Avodah Zarah 45a derives this concept from the exegesis ofDeuteronomy 12:2: "You shall surely destroy all the places where the gentiles... served their gods: on the mountains, on the hills, and under any luxuriant tree." The Sages explained that the verse indicates that shrines which are "on" the mountains and the hills and "under" the trees must be destroyed, but not the mountains, hills, and trees themselves. Our Sages exclaim: "Must God cause His world to be destroyed because of the fools?"
provided they were planted originally with the intent of harvesting their fruit - If, however, the trees were planted with the intent that they be worshiped, they are considered to be an asherah and forbidden, as explained in Halachah 3.
springs which provide water for many people - The Rambam's phraseology leads to the conclusion that a spring which provides water for only one person is forbidden if it is worshiped. The Prisha (Yoreh De'ah 145, based on Avodah Zarah 47a), explains that were an individual to quarry out a spring to worship as a deity, it would be forbidden to benefit from it. Accordingly, when a spring that is worshiped provides water for only one person, we fear that it was quarried out for these purposes. In contrast, when many people benefit from a spring, we do not harbor such suspicions, even when the spring is worshiped.
[In their commentaries on Yoreh De'ah 145:1, the Turei Zahav and theSiftei Cohen reject this premise and maintain that as long as the water is attached to the spring, it is not forbidden, despite its being worshiped. Indeed, the Turei Zahav explains that even the Rambam would accept such a decision. See the commentary on the following halachah.]
and animals - Temurah 29a derives this concept as follows: Our Sages required a special verse from the T'nach to teach us that an animal that was worshiped as a deity may not be offered as a sacrifice. Were such an animal to be forbidden for use by a common person, no verse would be necessary to teach us that it is not fit for sacrificial purposes.
despite their having been worshiped by pagans. It is permitted to partake of fruits that were worshiped in the place where they grow -Nevertheless, after the tree has been worshiped, all the fruits which grow on it during the time it is worshiped are forbidden, as explained in Halachah 3.
and to partake of such an animal. - The Paschal sacrifice offered by our ancestors in Egypt serves as an example of this principle. Though the Egyptians worshiped the lamb, our ancestors offered it as a sacrifice to God.
Needless to say, it is permitted to partake of an animal that was set aside - but not yet used
for the purpose of idol worship. It - such an animal
is permitted regardless of whether it was set aside to be worshiped - as a deity itself.
or to be sacrificed [to another deity]. - See Chapter 7, Halachah 15, which explains that anything set aside to be offered to an idol is not forbidden until it has actually been offered.
Temurah 28b cites a striking example of this principle. Judges (Chapter 6) relates that Gideon offered as a sacrifice to God a bull which his father had been fattening for seven years to offer as a sacrifice to Baal.
When do the above statements permitting the use of an animal - dedicated to an idol
apply? When a deed involving it was not committed for the sake of idol worship. If, however, any deed whatsoever was committed involving it, it is forbidden - Temurah 29a gives two examples: One shears the animal for the sake of idol worship or uses it to perform work for an idol. See also Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 4:4.
for example, one cut one of its signs - The term "signs" refers to the windpipe and esophagus, which must both be slit open for ritual slaughter to be acceptable. (See Hilchot Shechitah 1:9.)
for the sake of an idol - as are all sacrifices offered to idols (Chapter 7, Halachah 2).
Should one exchange it for an idol, it is forbidden - as explained in Chapter 7, Halachah 9. The Or Sameach explains that this prohibition applies only with regard to an idol worsiped by a Jew. We are permitted to benefit from anything which a gentile exchanged for an idol.
Similarly, it is forbidden if it was exchanged for an article that was itself exchanged for an idol, since the latter article is considered to be "payment for an idol." - The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 145:9) do not accept this prohibition and permit the use of an article exchanged for an article that was exchanged for an idol.
When does the above apply? Regarding one's own animal. If, however, one - According to the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 145), this leniency does not apply when such actions are performed by a gentile. [In this regard, an apostate Jew is considered like a gentile.]
Though the halachah follows the Beit Yosef's opinion, theOr Sameachoffers a different interpretation of the Rambam's words, explaining that his statements are explicit, and neither Jew nor gentile can cause his colleague's property to become forbidden.
slaughtered a colleague's animal for the sake of a false deity, or exchanged it for an idol, it does not become forbidden, because a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to become forbidden. - According to the Or Sameach, this is a blanket statement, applying under all circumstances. The Kessef Mishneh, however, cites Hilchot Shechitah 2:21 (which is based on Chulin 41a), where the Rambam clarifies the rationale for this decision, explaining that the person presenting the offering is only performing the act to "cause his colleague discomfort."
The phrasing of the present halachah appears to indicate that a person has no potential to cause his colleague's property to become forbidden. From Hilchot Shechitah, however, it appears that were he to, in fact, desire to sacrifice an animal to a idol, he would cause it to become forbidden. Leniency is granted only because his intent is not to do so, and he appears to do so merely to cause his colleague suffering.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch 145:8 (based on the passage fromChulin) rule that if a person was warned against offering the sacrifice to an idol and acknowledged the warning, it is forbidden to benefit from the animal. See also Halachah 3 and the commentary.
When a person bows down to virgin earth, he does not cause it to become forbidden - because the earth cannot be manipulated, nor was it made by man, as above.
If he digs pits, channels, and caverns in it for the sake of a false deity, it becomes forbidden. - From the Rambam's statements, it appears that if these diggings were carried out for the sake of an idol, they are automatically forbidden. The Tur (ibid.) differs and maintains that one must worship the land after the digging is completed. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid., 145:7) quotes the Rambam's statement.
Commentary Halacha
When a person bows down to water which was lifted up by a wave, he does not cause [the water] to become forbidden. - Avodah Zarah59a states that since the water was not separated by human activity, it is considered to be attached to its source. Hence, it is governed by the principles mentioned in the beginning of the previous halachah.
If, however, he picked [water] up with his hands - it is "manipulated by man"
and - is no longer governed by the same rules. Therefore, if a person
bowed down to it, it becomes forbidden - as an idol would.
The Ra'avad disputes the Rambam's decision, basing his opinion onAvodah Zarah 47a, which states: "Water that belongs to the many is never prohibited." Accordingly, he explains that the water can become prohibited only if it is the private property of a single individual. If it belongs to the public at large, it remains permitted even if it was picked up by human hands and worshiped.
The Rambam interprets the passage from Avodah Zarah differently, and maintains that once water is picked up by an individual, it is considered to be his property, and hence can become prohibited. The Shulchan Aruchdoes not mention this law, leading to the conclusion that it accepts the Ra'avad's view. The later authorities (e.g., Siftei Cohen 145:2), however, follow the Rambam's view.
[Note the comments of the Turei Zahav 145:3, who explains that the Rambam mentions "Springs which provide water for many people" in the previous halachah only to negate the Ra'avad's opinion. By making such a statement, the Rambam clarifies that water belonging to many people remains permitted at all times when it is a "spring." If separated from its source by human activity, it can become forbidden.]
If rocks which had slid down from a mountain - The Turei Zahav 145:2 explains that this decision applies even when they slid far from the mountain. This decision, however, is not accepted by all authorities.
were worshiped in the place where they [landed], they are permitted, since they were not manipulated by man. - Hence, the leniencies mentioned in the previous halachah apply.
The Ra'avad objects to this decision as well, noting that the matter is debated by the Sages in Avodah Zarah 46a, and no decision is reached. Since this is a question of Torah law, it would seem appropriate to follow the more stringent view.
The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 145:1) explains that the Rambam's decision is based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3:6), which rules that these rocks are permitted.
Commentary Halacha
When a Jew stands a brick up with the intention of bowing down to it, but does not bow down to it - Were the scenario to be completed at this point, the brick would not be forbidden, because an object of worship does not become forbidden until it is actually worshiped.
and then a gentile comes and bows down to it - serving it as a false deity
benefit from [the brick] becomes forbidden, because standing it up is considered to be a deed. - The explanation of this law (quoted fromAvodah Zarah 46a) depends on the difference of interpretation between the Beit Yosef and the Or Sameach mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 1.
According to the Or Sameach, who maintains that a gentile cannot cause property belonging to a Jew to become forbidden, this law can be explained as follows: Although the gentile's actions would not generally cause the brick to become forbidden, since the Jew indicated his desire to worship the brick, we assume that he is pleased with the gentile's act. Therefore, it becomes forbidden.
According to the Beit Yosef's opinion (see Yoreh De'ah 145), which maintains that a gentile can cause a Jew's property to become forbidden, this passage teaches us that the Jew's act is considered sufficient to cause the brick to become forbidden.
Similarly, if he - a Jew
stands an egg up and a gentile comes and bows down to it, it becomes forbidden. - This situation is left as an unresolved question inAvodah Zarah (ibid.). Rashi explains that the question is whether standing up an egg is, like standing up a brick, a significant act, or whether, because an egg is much smaller than a brick, standing it up is of no significance. Because the question is left unresolved, the Rambam follows the more severe view.
This and the previous law indicate that for a Jew's acceptance of idol worship to be significant in this context, it is necessary for him to perform a deed; a verbal statement or thought is of no consequence.
If one cuts off a gourd or the like and bows down to it, it is forbidden. - As long as a plant is attached to its source, the fact that it is worshiped does not cause it to be forbidden, as explained in Halachah 1. When, however, it is cut off and worshiped, it becomes forbidden.
Even when one bows down to only half the gourd and the other half is still attached to it, it is forbidden because of the doubt involved. Perhaps the second half is considered to be a handle for the half which was worshiped. - The Ra'avad objects to this decision, stating that the principle of considering one object as a "handle" of another applies only with regard to questions of ritual purity, and not regarding the prohibition of articles because of their connection with idol worship.
Though Rashi's interpretation of Chulin 128a appears to support the Ra'avad's view, the Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz explain that the passage can also be interpreted according to the Rambam's perspective.
It is forbidden to benefit from a tree which was planted for the purpose of being worshiped. - Although, as stated in Halachah 1, worshiping a tree does not cause it to become forbidden, since at the time the tree was planted it could be "manipulated by man," idol worship could cause it to become forbidden.
This is the asherah that the Torah mentions - in Exodus 34:13 and inDeuteronomy 7:5 and 12:3. There are many more references in the works of the prophets. See Chapter 6, note 28, which describes the worship of asherot. Note also the statements of the Zohar (Vol. I, 49a), which associate the rites of an asherah with the worship of the moon.
When a tree which had been planted previously - not for the pupose of idol worship
was pruned and carved for the sake of idol worship - even if it was extended - 18הכרבה refers to a technique quite popular as a means of extending vines. A large branch of the original vine is implanted into the ground. It becomes the base from which a new vine sprouts.
or a growth was grafted onto the trunk of the tree - and branches grew, one must cut off [these] branches, and benefit from them is forbidden. - Since these branches come about as a result of a human activity carried out for the sake of idol worship, they are forbidden.
The remainder of the tree, however, is permitted. - Although a deed was carried out with the tree itself, the tree - unlike the animals mentioned in Halachah 1 - does not become forbidden (Avodah Zarah 48a).
Similarly, when a person bows down to a tree, even though the tree itself is not forbidden, it is forbidden to benefit from all the branches, leaves, sprouts, and fruits which it produces during the time it is worshiped. - All the fruits and branches that are growing on the tree when it is first worshiped are permitted. The prohibition only applies to those which begin growing from the time the tree was worshiped (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 145:5).
When gentiles guard the fruits of a tree and say that they are designated to be used to make alchoholic beverages for a particular pagan temple, and [the fruits] are - known to be
used for alchoholic beverages which are - customarily
drunken on their pagan holidays, it is forbidden to benefit from this tree. - Avodah Zarah (ibid.) mentions this law with regard to date palms in Babylon that were set aside for the purpose of making beer for pagan celebrations.
This is the ritual associated with an asherah. - Thus, we see that its worship also involved Bacchanalian rites.
Accordingly, we can assume that [the tree] is an asherah, and therefore its fruits will be used for such purposes. - Although we generally do not accept a gentile's word, we accept his statements in this instance, since the circumstances attest to their genuineness.
Commentary Halacha
[The following rules apply to] a tree under which a false deity was placed: - See also Chapter 7, Halachah 11, which explains (based onAvodah Zarah 48a) that such a tree is also considered to be an asherah.
It is forbidden to benefit from it as long as the deity is located under it. - Rabbenu Nissim explains that this prohibition applies only when the tree was originally planted for this purpose. Otherwise, as in an instance when the tree itself is worshiped (see Halachah 1), it is not forbidden.
Tosafot (Avodah Zarah 47b) do not accept this view. They explain that, although according to Torah law (מדאורייתא), the tree is permitted, the Rabbis forbade deriving benefit from it as long as the false deity is located under it.
From the Rambam's inclusion of this law in this halachah, it would appear that he subscribes to the latter view. Though the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 145:6) quotes this law without specifying that the tree must be planted for this intent, the Siftei Cohen (145:19) mentions this factor.
When it is removed - The Rambam's phraseology differs slightly from his source, Avodah Zarah (ibid.), which states, "when it (the deity) is negated."
we are permitted [to benefit] from it - The Kessef Mishneh explains that, in contrast to the previous halachah, in this instance even the branches of the tree which grew while the deity was located under the tree are permitted
since the tree itself is not the entity which was worshiped.
When a gentile - The Rambam mentions a gentile in this instance because, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 4, a false deity made by a gentile is prohibited immediately. In contrast, if it was made by a Jew, it is not forbidden until it was worshiped.
constructs a building with the intention that the building itself be worshiped, and, similarly, when a person bows down to a building that has already been constructed, they become forbidden. -Although a building that has already been constructed is connected to the earth, and thus cannot be "manipulated by man," it can still become forbidden. Avodah Zarah 47b explains that since the building materials were originally separate from the earth, the fact that they were later attached to the earth is of no significance.
The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1492) and other authorities note that in other places in the Mishneh Torah - e.g., Hilchot Me'ilah 5:5 - the Rambam considers a house, like a mountain or a tree, to be an article which is attached to the earth and beyond man's control. The Radbaz explains that the more stringent position was adopted in our particular instance because of the serious nature of the prohibition against the worship of false deities.
When a [building] which had already been constructed, was plastered and embellished - with artistic forms (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 3:7)
for the sake of worship - This also refers to an instance where the building itself is worshiped, and not where it is merely serving as a shrine for the worship of other deities.
to the extent that it is considered to be a new entity, one must remove all the new additions - If the house belonged to a gentile, it is unnecessary for all the additions to be removed. After making minor changes to nullify the house's connection with worship, benefiting from it is permissible (Turei Zahav, Yoreh De'ah 145:8).
and it is forbidden to benefit from them, since they were made with the intention of being worshiped. - If these "improvements" were made by a Jew, his intent is not taken into consideration and the prohibition takes effect only if the building is actually worshiped.
It is, however, permitted to benefit from the remainder of the building - since it was not constructed with a forbidden intent.
If one placed an idol within a house, it is forbidden to benefit from the house while the idol is located within. - Although the house was not originally constructed to be a shrine, as long as it serves this purpose, it is forbidden to benefit from it.
When it is removed, the house becomes permitted. - The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 145:3) relates that if the house was originally constructed to be a shrine for a false deity, the removal of the idol is not sufficient to cause it to become permitted. Rather, the connection it shares with idol worship must be nullified. Furthermore, such nullification is effective only when the house is owned by a gentile. If it is owned by a Jew, the nullification is of no consequence.
Similarly, it is forbidden to benefit from a stone which was hewn from a mountain with the intention that it be worshiped. - Note the differences in the laws involving Jews and gentiles mentioned above.
If it had already been hewn out, but was adorned and embellished with the intention that it be worshiped - even if the stone itself was adorned and embellished - i.e.,the substance of the stone was itself carved and
and, needless to say, if the adornment was - from other substances that were
added to it - one - a Jew, see above regarding a gentile
must remove all the new additions, and it is forbidden to benefit from them, since they were made with the intention of being worshiped. It is, however, permitted to benefit from the remainder of the stone - since it was hewn from the ground without a forbidden intent.
Commentary Halacha
A stone on which an idol is placed is forbidden as long as the idol is upon it - even though it was not originally hewn out for this intention.
Once [the idol] is removed, it is permitted. - In this case as well, we must assume that the stone was not originally hewn out for this intention. Otherwise, the prohibition would continue even after the idol was removed.
When a person's house which is located next to [a shrine of] - Rashi,Avodah Zarah 47a, states that this refers to a house which is itself worshiped.
an idol - The commentaries explain that the person's house and the shrine share a single wall. The wall is located, however, on property belonging to the shrine.
falls, it is forbidden for him to rebuild it - to its former boundaries. By rebuilding the wall, the person completes the construction of the idol's shrine.
What must he do? He must move [the wall] within his own four cubits - The Rambam's text of the source of this halachah, the Mishnah,Avodah Zarah 3:6, does not mention "four cubits," nor is this phrase included in many manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The intent appears to be that he should move the wall entirely onto his own property. Other authorities, however, include this phrase in the Mishnah. According to their view (which is accepted by the Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 143:2), one must leave open a space of four cubits.
and then rebuild it. The empty space must not be left free for the sake of the shrine of the idol - lest the shrine be expanded.
Rather, he should fill it with thorns or feces. - Avodah Zarah 47b states that the space should be used "as an outhouse for children."
If the wall belonged jointly to both a private individual and an idol -i.e., the space upon which the wall originally stood belonged to both. Therefore, when the property lines are drawn again,
it should be considered to belong to them equally. - This is the common practice when a wall falls. (See Bava Batra 1:1.)
It is permitted to benefit from his half - Though he must leave an open space between the wall he builds and the wall of the shrine, he may include his portion of the area from the fallen wall as part of this space (Beit Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 143).
the [half] belonging to the idol, however, is forbidden - and cannot be included in the open space.
[Similarly,] it is forbidden to benefit from all [the wall's] stones, beams, and earth. - Our translation follows Rashi's commentary. Rabbenu Nissim maintains that if the wall was built jointly by the two parties, the Jew is entitled to half of the building materials. Nevertheless, even though he follows this view in principle, in practice, he forbids the Jew from using any of the building materials which he does not recognize as his own. The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) quotes Rabbenu Nissim's view.
Commentary Halacha
How must one destroy a false deity - The placement of this halachah appears problematic. On the surface, it would have been more appropriate to relate it after Chapter 7, Halachah 1, which mentions the commandment to destroy idol worship, or after the following halachah, which completes the description of the types of articles that are forbidden because of their association with idol worship.
Perhaps, since the prohibition against benefiting from the coating of an idol is considered to be a mitzvah in its own right, the Rambam concludes his discussion of the mitzvah to destroy prohibited articles before entering that subject (Kinat Eliyahu).
and the other entities which are forbidden on its account - e.g., its accessories and offerings? - See Chapter 7, Halachot 2 and 9.
One must grind them and scatter [the dust] in the wind - The Sages objected to this opinion, maintaining that the dust will serve as fertilizer, and thus benefit man. This objection is not accepted, since the fertilizer is not the only factor causing the crops to grow (see the commentary on Chapter 7, Halachah 14, which describes the concept of 18הז םרוגáהזו), and it was not intentionally used for this purpose (Tosafot, Avodah Zarah43a).
or burn them and deposit the ashes in the Dead Sea. - See the commentary on Chapter 7, Halachah 5, which explains why the Dead Sea is mentioned.
The Merchevat HaMishneh cites Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 11:3, which states:
How must chametz be destroyed? It may be burned, crumbled and tossed to the wind, or thrown to the sea.
On this basis, he explains that there are three options to destroy a false deity: grinding and tossing it to the wind, burning (where the article must be destroyed), and throwing it into the Dead Sea. Since the Dead Sea is a barren place, which is not frequented by ships, the article need not be destroyed. Even if it is left whole, we assume that no benefit will come from it to man.
This interpretation is not accepted by all authorities. Tosafot (ibid.) maintains that even an idol tossed into the Dead Sea must be destroyed first.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:15) mentions letting an idol sink "in the sea" (not "the Dead Sea"), without requiring that it be destroyed first. The Siftei Cohen (145:13) and the Turei Zahav (145:11), however, require an idol to be destroyed before it is deposited in any sea other than the Dead Sea.
Commentary Halacha
Although [as mentioned above,] an entity which cannot be manipulated by man - e.g., a mountain, animal, or tree - even when worshiped remains permitted - Though, as mentioned in Halachah 1, benefit from these entities is not forbidden, their worship is still considered to be idol worship. Therefore,
it is forbidden to benefit from its coatings - since they are considered to be an accessory of idol worship. Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 22) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 428) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
A person who derives any benefit from them whatsoever is [liable for] lashes - The commentaries note that in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, the Rambam states that a person who benefits from an idol or its accessories receives two measures of lashes. Thus, one might assume that for this transgression, one should receive two or three measures of lashes. (See the Ramban, Hasagot l'Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 194.)
Avodat HaMelech explains that since the deity itself is not forbidden, this prohibition is considered to be a separate commandment.
Accordingly, its transgression is not related to any other prohibitions.
Accordingly, its transgression is not related to any other prohibitions.
as [Deuteronomy 7:25] states: "Do not desire the silver and gold which are upon them." - Although, literally, the subject of the Biblical proof-text is "the statues of their gods," the interpretation quoted by the Rambam has its source in Avodah Zarah 45a.
Any coating of - Though the verse mentions only silver and gold, any substance which was intended to adorn an entity worshiped as
a false deity is considered to be one of its accessories - and forbidden.
Commentary Halacha
It is permitted to benefit from a false deity belonging to a gentile - but not one belonging to a Jew, as explained in the following halachah. That halachah also states that the gentile must be an idolater. If he does not worship idols, different rules apply.
whose deification was nullified - by performing one of the deeds mentioned in Halachah 10
by gentiles - but not by Jews (see the following halachah)
before - but not after, (see the following halachah.)
it entered the possession of a Jew, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states, "You must burn the statues of their gods with fire." - Avodah Zarah52a notes that the root לספ can mean both "statue" and "nullify." Thus, it comments, "Which is the source from where we learn that a gentile can nullify his deity? 'You must burn the statues of their gods.'"
K'nesset HaGedolah notes a difficulty in this halachah, based on the principle that two new concepts cannot be derived from the same verse.Avodah Zarah, ibid., mentions that the same phrase is quoted as the source for both this concept and the law stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 4. It therefore seeks to derive one of these laws from a different source. The Rambam, however, quotes the same phrase as the proof-text for both laws.
K'nesset HaGedolah and the Lechem Mishneh explain - using this as an example for a principle that applies throughout the Mishneh Torah - that the Rambam's goal was to present the laws in the manner which it could be most easily appreciated by a reader, even if in doing so he did not follow all the principles of Biblical exegesis accepted by the Talmud.
[This command applies] only if they are treated as gods when they enter our possession. If, however, their deification was nullified, they are permitted - and may be used for whatever purposes a Jew desires. It appears, however, that they are forbidden to be used for the Temple's purposes, even after they were nullified.
Commentary Halacha
A false deity belonging to a Jew can never be nullified. - Since a Jew's sin of idol worship is more severe than a gentile's, it is forbidden to derive benefit from the object of that worship forever.
Even if he owns it in partnership with a gentile, its nullification is of no consequence. - Avodah Zarah 53a explains that we consider the Jew to have worshiped the idol through his own process of choice, and not merely as a result of the gentile's influence. Therefore, even though the gentile nullifies his portion, the idol is still forbidden because of the Jew.
Rather, it is forbidden to benefit from it forever, and it must be entombed. - Avodah Zarah 52a derives this from Deuteronomy 27:15: "Cursed be the man who makes an idol... and places it in a secret place." We can infer: What must be done with an idol made by a Jew? It must be placed in a "secret place" - i.e., entombed.
The Kessef Mishneh and others question why a Jew's idol should be entombed instead of destroyed, as required in Halachah 6. [Note that Tosafot, Avodah Zarah, ibid., interpret the Hebrew genizah to mean "destruction," rather than entombment, in this instance.]
Avodat HaMelech explains that since the concept is derived from a Biblical proof-text, there is no difficulty. It is all a matter of Divine decree. In one instance, God desires that the false deities be destroyed, while in another instance He desires that they be entombed.
Similarly, when a false deity - Note that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah146:2) distinguishes between a false deity itself and its accessories and adornments, stating that the latter may be nullified by a gentile even after they have been acquired by a Jew.
belonging to a gentile enters the possession of a Jew, and then is nullified by a gentile, the nullification is of no consequence - TheBeit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 146) explains that this is a Rabbinic decree.
and it is forbidden to benefit from it forever. - Therefore, whenever a Jew wants to take possession of a false deity, he must have it nullified by a gentile before he assumes ownership of it.
A Jew cannot nullify a false deity - An idol can be nullified as a divinity only by a person who once attached importance to it. Since a Jew is, in essence, a believer in the true God, his attachment to idols is merely superficial. Hence, his acts can have no effect upon them.
even when it is in the possession of a gentile. - The Kessef Mishnehexplains that this decision applies even when the gentile gives the Jew permission to nullify it.
A gentile who is a minor or a fool cannot nullify a false deity. -Avodah Zarah 43a relates the following narrative:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi related: Once I was following Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Great on a road. He found a ring with the imprint of ad'rakon (see Chapter 7, Halachah 8) on it. He passed a gentile child without saying anything to him. Afterwards, he met a gentile adult and asked him to nullify it. He refused. Rabbi Elazar struck him and he nullified it.
We learn from this three things: a) a gentile can nullify an idol whether it belongs to him or to his colleague; b) a gentile who is knowledgeable about idol worship can nullify it, while one who is not knowledgeable cannot nullify it; c) a gentile's nullification of idol worship is effective even if he is compelled to do so.
We learn from this three things: a) a gentile can nullify an idol whether it belongs to him or to his colleague; b) a gentile who is knowledgeable about idol worship can nullify it, while one who is not knowledgeable cannot nullify it; c) a gentile's nullification of idol worship is effective even if he is compelled to do so.
Neither a minor nor a fool is considered "knowledgeable about idol worship." hence, their nullification is not acceptable.
When a gentile is forced to nullify a false deity - whether it belongs to him or to other gentiles - even when he is forced to do so by Jews, the nullification is of consequence.
The gentile who nullifies idol worship must himself be an idolater. - It does not, however, matter whether the idolater worships the particular idol he nullifies or not. For example, a worshiper of Pe'or can nullify a shrine of Marculis (Avodah Zarah 64b).
If he is not an idolater, his nullification is of no consequence. -Avodah Zarah (ibid.) states that a ger toshav - a gentile who accepts the observance of the seven universal laws given to Noach and his descendants - cannot nullify an idol.
As stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 6, a ger toshav must formalize his acceptance of these laws before a Rabbinic court. Also, the laws of a ger toshav apply only during the era when the Jubilee year is observed. Nevertheless, from Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 11:7 and 13:11, it appears that even a gentile who observes the seven Noachide laws cannot nullify an idol in the present era. There, the Rambam explains that the Moslems are not considered to be idolaters regarding the laws of yayin nesech. Thus, it can be assumed that their nullification of idol worship would not be of consequence.
See also the statements of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:2) and the Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 124:5), which appear to accept this decision.
When [a gentile] nullifies a false deity, he also nullifies [the connection to idol worship of] its accessories - and it becomes permitted to benefit from them. The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 146:13) states that this law applies even if a Jew had already taken possession of the accessories, so long as the false deity remained in the possession of the gentile.
When he nullifies [the connection to idol worship of] its accessories, it is permitted to benefit from the accessories. [The deity] itself, however, remains forbidden until it is nullified. - On the contrary, the fact that the gentile did not nullify the false deity itself indicates that he still has some reverence for it.
[The connection to idol worship of] an object that was brought to an idol as an offering - whether it was brought by a Jew or gentile
can never be nullified. - From Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 6:7, it appears that this decision applies only to foods which were offered to a false deity. If other articles were brought as offerings, different laws apply.
Commentary Halacha
How is [an idol] nullified - by a gentile, as mentioned in Halachah 8?
When one cuts off the tip of its nose, the tip of its ear, or the tip of its finger - By doing so, one mars its appearance and thus reveals that one no longer regards it with reverence.
smooths out its face - Our translation follows the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:4). Others (see Rashi,Avodah Zarah 53a) render it as "smashes its face."
even though none of its substance was destroyed - Once the face of an idol is no longer recognizable, the idol is obviously not considered to be a deity. The Rambam emphasizes that it is only when the face of the idol is smoothed out that it is nullified. Smoothing out any other portion of the idol is not effective.
or sells it to a Jewish jeweler - By doing so, the gentile implies his willingness to have the Jew smelt down the idol to its precious metal value. Thus, he obviously no longer considers it to be a god.
This point is debated in Avodah Zarah 53a, and no explicit conclusion is reached. Most other authorities (and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah146:8) maintain that selling it to a Jewish jeweler is insufficient to nullify it.
it is nullified. - Note the Ramah's decision (Yoreh De'ah 146:7) that making a verbal statement is sufficient to nullify it as an idol in most cases. A deed such as those mentioned above is necessary only when a gentile is compelled to nullify it.
If, however, one gave it as security for a loan, sold it to a gentile -even a jeweler
[sold it] to a Jew who is not a jeweler - In these instances, although the gentile used the idol for business purposes, it is still possible that he sold it with the intent that the purchaser use the idol as a god. Hence, we cannot be certain that it was nullified by the seller.
[left it] after it was covered by fallen articles without removing them, did not demand its return after it was stolen by thieves - Such acts appear to indicate that the gentile has little reverence for his idol. (Why should he? Once he sees that the idol cannot save itself, why should he think that it will benefit him?) Nevertheless, as long as he does not do anything that explicitly clarifies that he no longer reveres it, it is not nullified.
spat in its face, urinated upon it, dragged it [in mud] - The bracketed additions are based on Rashi's commentary (Avodah Zarah, ibid.).
or threw feces upon it - Although these acts are irreverent in nature, they could be interpreted as temporary expressions of anger rather than a sincere nullification of the idol's divinity.
it is not nullified. - Avodah Zarah 53a derives this from the exegesis ofIsaiah 8:21-22, which implies that though temporarily the people may "curse their king and god (idol) and look upward (to the true God)," shortly afterwards they will return and "look to the earth" (worship their idol again).
Commentary Halacha
When a false deity was abandoned by its worshipers in a time of peace, it is apparent that they nullified it. - Were they still to worship it, they would not have abandoned it. Note Avodah Zarah 53b, which applies these principles to the Tower of Babel.
Hence, benefit may be derived from it. [If it was abandoned] in a time of war, it is forbidden. The only reason they abandoned it was the war. - Note the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:10) which states that if the gentiles could return to the idol but do not, it is considered to have been nullified.
When a false deity becomes broken in the course of nature, it is forbidden to benefit from its broken pieces until they have been nullified. -Avodah Zarah 41b quotes a difference of opinion on this matter between Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan. Resh Lakish maintains that we can assume that the gentiles nullified their worship of the idol. If it could not save itself, surely it cannot save them.
Rabbi Yochanan does not accept this opinion and maintains that even when an idol is broken it is revered. Avodah Zarah 49b states that the gentiles would even worship the broken pieces of an idol. (See also the Jerusalem Talmud, Avodah Zarah 3:3.)
Accordingly, when a person finds broken pieces of an idol, [he must regard them] as forbidden, lest the gentiles have not nullified them. - Avodah Zarah 41b explains that although the possibility exists that the idol was nullified, we must still regard it as forbidden. Since it is recognized as an idol, the prohibition against using it becomes an established fact, which cannot be changed until we are certain that it has been nullified as an object of worship. (Note also our commentary on Chapter 7, Halachah 7.)
[The following principles apply to an idol] which comes in pieces: If it could be reassembled by an ordinary person - the fact that it is broken is not of consequence. Indeed, the laws which govern it are more stringent than if it remained whole.
each piece must be nullified individually - for each is considered to be a separate entity.
If [an ordinary person] could not reassemble it, once one has nullified one of its limbs, all of them are nullified. - Since the idol is broken and cannot be reassembled by an ordinary person, it is treated more leniently, and if one part of it is nullified, the entire idol becomes permitted. In contrast to the Ra'avad and some other authorities, the Rambam does require that at least this minimal nullification be carried out. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:11) follows the Rambam's view.
Commentary Halacha
Though an altar for idol worship has been damaged, it is still forbidden to benefit from it until the majority of it has been destroyed - Avodah Zarah54a cites an allusion to this law in Isaiah 27:9: "All the stones of the altar will be as chalkstones that are cracked open."
by gentiles. - As stated in Halachah 9, the nullification of false deities must be performed by gentiles.
A platform which has been damaged is permitted. - Avodah Zarah53b relates that since a platform consists of only a single stone, if it is damaged another one will be brought to replace it.
Halachah 5 states that once an idol is removed from a stone, one is permitted to benefit from it. Thus, we are forced to say that this law is speaking about an instance where the stone is presently being used as a platform. It can be interpreted as applying when the damage happens as a matter of course. The Rambam is teaching us that even though the stone is being used as a platform at present, since it will soon be replaced, it is permitted. Alternatively, it is speaking about a stone which was originally hewn out to be used as a platform. In such an instance, the damage must be purposely caused by a gentile with the intention of nullifying the platform.
What is considered a platform, and what, an altar? A platform consists of a single stone; an altar, of many stones. - Rather than differentiate between them because of the functions they serve, explaining that a platform is used to place idols upon, and an altar, to bring sacrifices, the Rambam (based on Avodah Zarah, ibid.,) considers size the determinant.
How are the stones of Marculis nullified? - As mentioned, a shrine to Marculis consists of three stones placed one on top of the other.
When one constructs a building from them or uses them to pave the roads or the like, it is permitted to benefit from them. - Avodah Zarah50a relates that even Rabbi Menachem b'Rabbi Simai, who was called the son of the holy because he would not look at the image of a coin, lest it carry the form of an idol, would walk on such roads.
How is an asherah - A tree which is worshiped or one which offers shade for an idol
nullified? When one pulls off a leaf, cuts off a branch - Our translation is based on the text of the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:10) and the Rambam's commentary. A printing error appears has crept into the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah, which read זרק rather than זרד.
takes a staff or scepter from it, or planes off its sides in a manner which does not benefit it, it is nullified. - These actions indicate a lack of reverence for the tree. Hence, they are sufficient to nullify it.
When one planes its sides in a manner which benefits it - to improve its appearance or to prune it so that it will grow better
it is forbidden - Since these actions are no indication of a lack of reverence,
but its shavings are permitted - since they are not worshiped.
If [the sides of] an asherah which belongs to a Jew - or if a Jew does this to an asherah of a gentile
[are planed off] - even by a gentile
both it and its shavings - Even though the shavings will not be worshiped, since they come from a false deity which was not nullified, they also
are forbidden forever, regardless of whether [it was planed] for its benefit or not, because a false deity belonging to a Jew can never be nullified - as stated in Halachah 10.
Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine
Halacha 1
It is forbidden to purchase or sell any durable entity to an idolater within three days of one of their holidays. [Similarly, within this period, it is forbidden] to borrow from them, to lend to them, to accept payment from them or to repay them for a loan that is supported by a promissory note or collateral. It is, however, permitted to collect a loan which is supported by a verbal commitment alone, because one is saving one's property from being lost to them.
It is permitted to sell them an entity which will not endure - e.g., vegetables, or a cooked dish - until the day of their festival.
When does the above apply? In Eretz Yisrael. In other lands, however, it is forbidden [to engage in such activities] only on the day of their festival itself.
If one transgressed and did business with them during these three days, one may derive benefit from the results of these transactions. When, however, one does business with them on the day of their festival itself, it is forbidden to benefit from the results of these transactions.
Halacha 2
It is forbidden to send a present to a gentile on one of his holidays, unless one knows that he does not acknowledge or worship idols. Similarly, if a gentile sends a present to a Jew on one of [the gentile's] holidays, the Jew should not accept it. If, however, there is the possibility of ill-feeling arising, he should take it from him. Nevertheless, he should not derive any benefit from it until he finds out that the gentile does not acknowledge or worship idols.
Halacha 3
If the idolaters' festival lasts several days - whether three, four, or ten - all the days [of the festival] are considered as a single day. [Carrying out transactions] on any of these days, or on the three days preceding them, is forbidden.
Halacha 4
The Canaanites are idol worshipers, and Sunday is their festival. Accordingly, in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden to conduct transactions with them on Thursday and Friday each and every week, and, needless to say, on Sunday itself, when transactions with them are forbidden everywhere.
Halacha 5
The day on which the idolaters gather together to crown a king and offer sacrifice and praise to their false deities is considered to be one of their holidays, since it is comparable to their other holidays. In contrast, on a day which is celebrated by an individual idolater as a festival on which he gives thanks and praise to the star he [worships] - for example, his birthday, the day on which he shaves his beard or hair, the day on which he returns from a sea-voyage, the day on which he leaves prison, the day on which he makes a [wedding] feast for his son, and the like - it is forbidden [to do business] on that particular day only with that individual man.
Similarly, when [it is customary] that the day on which one of them dies is marked with festivities, it is forbidden [to do business] with those individuals on that day. Whenever [a person's] death is marked by the burning of his utensils and the offering of incense, we can assume that idol worship is [involved in the ritual].
The [above] prohibition applies only to those who worship [the false deity]. In contrast, it is permitted to do business with those who join in the celebrations by eating, drinking, and observing it as a matter of custom or in deference to the king.
Halacha 6
Articles which are distinguished by their use [in the worship] of one of the false deities in a particular locale may never be sold to the worshipers of that deity in that locale. Articles which are not characterized by such uniqueness may be sold to them without enquiring [about the purpose for which they will be used].
If, however, an idolater specifically states that he is purchasing the article for the sake of idol worship, it is forbidden to sell it to him unless one blemishes it in a manner which disqualifies it for use as an offering to the idol. An animal lacking a limb is not offered as a sacrifice to an idol.
Halacha 7
It is permitted to sell articles which are distinguished [by their use in the worship of a false deity] that are mixed together with articles that are not used for such purposes - e.g., pure frankincense with black frankincense - without enquiring [about the purpose for which they will be used]. We do not suspect that [the purchaser] will separate the pure frankincense to use for idol worship. The same applies in other similar situations.
Halacha 8
Just as it is forbidden to sell idolaters articles that assist them in idol worship, it is forbidden to sell them articles that can cause harm to many people - for example, bears, lions, weapons, fetters, and chains. [Similarly,] it is forbidden to sharpen their weapons.
Everything that is forbidden to be sold to idolaters is also forbidden to be sold to a Jew who is suspect that he will sell to idolaters. Similarly, it is forbidden to sell dangerous objects to a Jewish thief.
Halacha 9
When the Jews dwell among the idolaters and have established a covenant with them, it is permissible to sell weapons to the servants of the king and his to his soldiers, because they use them to wage war against the enemies of the country and to protect it. Thus, they also protect us, for we dwell among them.
It is permitted to walk around a city in which an idol is located. It is, however, forbidden to enter [the city]. If the idol is located outside the city, it is permitted to walk within it.
Halacha 10
A person who is journeying from one place to another may not pass through a city in which a false deity is located.
When does this apply? When this is the only way to his destination. If, however, there is an alternate route to his destination and, by chance, he took [the route which passed through this city], it is permissible.
Halacha 11
It is forbidden to build - [even] together with an idolater - a dome under which an idol is placed. If one transgressed and built such a structure, however, one's wage is permitted. A priori, one may construct the palace or the courtyard where that dome is located.
Halacha 12
[The following laws apply] when an idol is located within a city and there some shops which are adorned and some which are not: It is forbidden to benefit from those which are adorned or [to use] anything they contain, since we can assume that they were adorned for the sake of idol worship. It is permitted to benefit from those which are not adorned.
It is forbidden to do business with a store owned by a false deity, because one offers benefit to the false deity.
Halacha 13
When a person sells his house to an idol, it is forbidden to benefit from the proceeds of the sale. Rather, they must be taken to the Dead Sea. If, however, an idolater steals a Jew's house against his will and places an idol within, it is permitted [to accept whatever] money [he offers]. [The Jew] may compose [a bill of sale] and formalize it in accordance with the civil law procedures.
Halacha 14
Flutes belonging to idolaters should not be used in a funeral dirge.
One may attend a pagan commercial fair and purchase livestock, gentile servants and maidservants before they convert, houses, fields, and vineyards. One may compose a bill of sale and formalize it in accordance with the civil law procedures, since by doing so one saves [one's property] from them.
When does the above apply? When one buys from a private individual who does not have to pay a tax [to the false deity]. If, however, one buys from a merchant, it is forbidden, for a merchant must pay a tax which must be given to the false deity. Hence, [by making such a purchase], one is giving benefit to a false deity.
[The following laws apply] if one transgressed and purchased [merchandise] from a merchant: If one purchased livestock, one should cut off the animal's hooves from below the anklebone. If one purchased garments or other objects, one should let them rot. If one purchased money or metal utensils, one should bring them to the Dead Sea. If one purchased a servant, one may not help him up [from a pit], nor should one push him into one.
Halacha 15
When an idolater makes a [wedding] party for his son or daughter, it is forbidden to benefit from the feast. It is even forbidden for a Jew to eat and drink his own food there, since it is being consumed at a celebration of idolaters.
When is it forbidden to eat such an idolater's food? From when he began to prepare for the wedding feast, the entire duration of the wedding feast, and for thirty days afterwards. [Furthermore,] if he makes another celebration because of the wedding even after thirty days have passed, it is forbidden [to participate] until twelve months [have passed].
This stringency was imposed because of idol worship, as [implied by Exodus 34:15-16]: "And he shall call to you and you shall eat from his slaughter, and you shall choose from his daughters for your sons. His daughters will stray after their gods, and they will lead your sons astray after these gods."
Halacha 16
A Jewish woman should not nurse the child of an idolater, since, by doing so, she raises a son who will be an idolater. She should not serve as a midwife for an idolatrous woman [without charge]. She may, however, do so for a fee, lest strife arise.
An idolatrous woman may serve as a midwife for a Jewess and nurse her child. [This must be done] in premises belonging to a Jew, lest the idolatrous woman kill the child.
Halacha 17
It is forbidden to trade with [gentiles] on their way to reproachful places of idol worship, but it is permitted to trade with them when they return. This applies when they do not journey in a caravan. If, however, they are traveling in a caravan, they may change their mind and return.
If a Jew journeys to a reproachful place of idol worship, one may trade with him on his way, since he may change his mind. On his way back, it is forbidden. [It is forbidden to trade with] an apostate Jew on his way there and on his way back.
Halacha 18
When a Jew attends a fair of idol worshipers it is forbidden to trade with him when he returns. Perhaps he sold an idol to them, and it is forbidden to benefit from the proceeds of the sale of idol worship possessed by a Jew.
It is, however, permitted to benefit from [the proceeds of the sale of an idol] possessed by an idolater. Therefore, it is permitted to trade with an idolater coming from such a fair, but not with a Jew. It is forbidden to trade with an apostate Jew on his way to and on his way from such a fair.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Thursday, Kislev 21, 5776 · 03 December 2015
"Today's Day"
Monday Kislev 21 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayeishev, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 104-105.
Tanya: Compiler's foreword (p.xii)...in the gates (she'arim) (p.xiv).
Learn Mishna by heart, each person according to his capacity, and then while walking in the street, review Mishna from memory; you will thereby merit welcoming Mashiach.
Chassidim must study Chassidus; all chassidim on Mondays, Thursdays, and Shabbat; T'mimim1 an hour every day.
FOOTNOTES
1. Former (in this context) students of Yeshivat Tomchei Tmimim, the Lubavitcher yeshiva; see Elul 15, (p. 87 in the published version).---------------------• Daily Thought:
The Escape Hatch
All of us need a small hatch through which we can climb out of our little spaceship once in a while.
So we can look at ourselves from the outside and see what is good and what needs repair and what could be put to better use. So we can look beyond ourselves and see how we compare to the vast universe.
In fact, we all have just such a hatch. We don’t use it much, however. Because we are so fearful of leaving our comfortable, well-defined selves and venturing into the vast Beyond.
But if we never leave, how will we grow?
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment