Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10-12

Sugya Map

• Issue: The extent and application of the Torah's prohibitions against forging covenants with idolaters and showing them grace ("לא תכרות להם ברית" and "לא תחנם"), alongside the contrasting imperative regarding Jewish transgressors (mosrim, minim, apikorsim).
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Whether one may save an idolater from mortal danger (e.g., drowning, illness).
  • The legal distinction between passively allowing harm versus actively causing it, regarding idolaters.
  • The categorical imperative to actively eradicate Jewish mosrim, minim, and apikorsim.
• Primary Sources: Devarim 7:2 ("לא תכרות להם ברית", "לא תחנם"), Shemot 23:33 ("לא ישבו בארצך"), Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1-2, Hilchot Melachim U'Milchamoteihem 6:1.

Text Snapshot

The Rambam opens Perek 10 with stark pronouncements regarding idolaters and Jewish transgressors:

"אֵין כּוֹרְתִין בְּרִית עִם עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁיַּעֲשׂוּ עִמָּהֶם שָׁלוֹם וְיַנִּיחוּ אוֹתָם לְעָבְדָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז, ב) 'לֹא תִכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית'. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן קִבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲבֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וְאָסוּר לְרַחֵם עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר 'לֹא תְחָנֵּם'." (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1)

This establishes a baseline: no covenant that permits idolatry, and no showing of grace. The phrase "וְאָסוּר לְרַחֵם עֲלֵיהֶם" (and it is forbidden to have mercy upon them) is particularly broad.

The implications are immediately drawn:

"לְפִיכָךְ אִם רָאָה עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים אוֹבֵד אוֹ טוֹבֵעַ בַּנָּהָר לֹא יַעֲלֶנּוּ. וְאִם רָאָהוּ סָמוּךְ לְמִיתָה לֹא יַצִּילֶנּוּ. אֲבָל אָסוּר לִגְרֹם לוֹ מִיתָה, כְּגוֹן לְהַפִּילוֹ לְבֵאֵר אוֹ לְדָבָר שֶׁמֵּמִית וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה עִמָּנוּ מִלְחָמָה." (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:2)

Here, the Rambam distinguishes between passive non-rescue ("לֹא יַעֲלֶנּוּ", "לֹא יַצִּילֶנּוּ") and active causation of death ("אָסוּר לִגְרֹם לוֹ מִיתָה").

Critically, a sharp contrast is drawn for Jewish transgressors:

"בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בִּגְנוּת עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים. אֲבָל הַמּוֹסְרִים וְהָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִים מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מִצְוָה לְאַבְּדָם וּלְהוֹרִידָם לִבְאֵר שַׁחַת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מְצָרִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמְסִיתִים אֶת הָעָם מֵאַחֲרֵי ה'." (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:2)

The shift from "אסור לרחם" (forbidden to have mercy) to "מצוה לאבדם" (it is a mitzvah to eradicate them) is paramount, highlighting the unique threat Jewish dissenters pose to the community. The dikduk "מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל" explicitly limits this severe ruling to those "from Israel."

Readings

Seder Mishnah: Limiting the Scope of "לא תכרות להם ברית"

The Seder Mishnah on Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1, in his initial comments on the Rambam's statement, "אין כורתין ברית וכו' כדי שנעשה עמהן שלום וכו' שנאמר לא תכרות להם ברית וגו'," draws our attention to a critical nuance in the Rambam's larger corpus:

"עיין בהל' מלכי' פ"ו הלכה א' ועיין עוד בסה"מ מנין המצות בחלק הלאוין שם דעתו דאזהרה זו אינה אלא בז' עממין." (Seder Mishnah on Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1:1)

Translation: "See Hilchot Melachim Chapter 6, Halacha 1, and see further in Sefer HaMitzvot, list of negative commandments, where his opinion is that this prohibition applies only to the Seven Nations."

The chiddush here is profound. While the immediate context in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1 seems to speak of idolaters generally, the Seder Mishnah points out that the Rambam elsewhere (Hilchot Melachim U'Milchamoteihem 6:1 and Sefer HaMitzvot, Lo Ta'aseh 48) limits the prohibition of "לא תכרות להם ברית" (Do not establish a covenant with them) specifically to the Sheva Amim (Seven Nations) who originally inhabited Canaan. This means that with other idolaters, a covenant that allows them to continue their idolatry might not be forbidden by this specific lav, though other considerations might apply. This interpretation significantly narrows the scope of the Rambam's opening statement, suggesting that the strictness applies to a particular historical and geographic context.

Tzafnat Pa'neach: The Nuance of "לא תחנם" and Passive Harm

Rabbi Yosef Rosen, the Tzafnat Pa'neach, offers a subtle interpretation of the Rambam's "ואסור לרחם כו'" in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1:

"אך זה רק אם חלה שיבריא אבל שלא יחלה שרי וזה הוי כמו מבריח ארי וזה תליא בהך דע"ז ד' ט"ז ע"א גבי תריסין ועיין תוס' שם ד' כ' ע"א ד"ה ר"י ועיין שבת דף קכ"ט ע"א ע"ש בזה:" (Tzafnat Pa'neach on Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1:1)

Translation: "However, this is only if he is sick, that he should recover, but that he should not get sick is permitted. And this is like 'chasing away a lion' (מבריח ארי), and this depends on the gemara in Avodah Zarah 16a regarding shields (תריסין), and see Tosafot there 20a s.v. R' Yehudah, and see Shabbat 129a, regarding this."

The chiddush of the Tzafnat Pa'neach lies in distinguishing between preventing an idolater from recovering from an existing illness or danger (which would fall under "לא תחנם" and thus be forbidden) and preventing them from falling ill or encountering danger in the first place (which would be permitted). He likens the latter to "מבריח ארי" (chasing away a lion), a concept from the Gemara (e.g., Avodah Zarah 16a) where one may remove a potential source of harm to oneself, even if it indirectly benefits an idolater. This suggests that the prohibition of "לא תחנם" is not an active quest for the idolater's detriment, but rather a refusal to extend unearned grace or aid in situations where their plight is already set in motion. It maintains the passive non-rescue aspect of Rambam's halacha while opening a small window for preventative, self-motivated actions that might incidentally benefit an idolater.

Seder Mishnah: Defining Jewish Transgressors

The Seder Mishnah provides an extensive analysis of the Rambam's classification of Jewish transgressors, specifically focusing on the term "מוסרים והאפיקורסים מישראל" in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:2. He addresses a perceived inconsistency in the Rambam's terminology regarding a "ממר לעבירה אחת להכעיס" (one who transgresses a single mitzvah out of spite). The Lechem Mishneh (cited by Seder Mishnah) points out that in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:9, the Rambam calls such an individual a mumar, whereas in Hilchot Gezelah Va'Avedah 11:2 and Hilchot Rotze'ach 4:10, he calls him an apikores.

The Seder Mishnah offers a terutz (resolution):

"דס"ל לרבינו דשתי תוארים יש לו לאוכל נבילות להכעיס אפיקורס וגם מומר ולפעמים מיחסו בשם הכולל הוא אפיקורס, ולפעמים מתארו בשם פרטי והוא מומר, אבל על אפיקורס לא יתכן כלל שם מומר כי מומר ענינו הכעסה ומרידה נגדו ית' כביכול כמו וממר ליולדתו, וזה שמאמין בהשם ית' ובהשגחתו ובתורתו רק שהוא מכוון למרוד בו או להכעיס יפול עליו שם מומר, והאפיקורס דקא חשיב רבינו בהל' תשובה שכופר במציאות השם ובהשגחתו על מעשה בני אדם, או שמכחיש נבואתו של מרע"ה, הן אלה אינן מכוונים למרוד בו ית' אך תועים המה בשקול דעתם..." (Seder Mishnah on Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:2:1)

Translation: "For the Rambam holds that one who eats nevelot (non-kosher meat) out of spite has two titles: apikores and mumar. Sometimes he refers to him by the general name, apikores, and sometimes he describes him by the specific name, mumar. But the name mumar cannot apply at all to an apikores, for mumar means provocation and rebellion against God, as it were, like 'and he rebels against his mother.' And one who believes in God, His providence, and His Torah, but only intends to rebel against Him or provoke Him, the name mumar applies to him. But an apikores, whom the Rambam counts in Hilchot Teshuvah as one who denies the existence of God and His providence over human actions, or who denies the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu — these do not intend to rebel against God, but rather they are mistaken in their judgment..."

The chiddush is that "אוכל נבילות להכעיס" can be categorized as both mumar (one who rebels against God's command out of spite) and apikores (in a broader sense of rejecting the authority of Torah, even if not denying God's existence). The apikores (in the narrower sense) denies fundamental tenets of faith, stemming from intellectual error, while the mumar rebels out of knowing spite. However, one who transgresses "להכעיס" (to provoke) is effectively denying the authority of God's command, which is a form of apikorsut. The Seder Mishnah clarifies that the Rambam uses these terms to emphasize different aspects of their transgression, with apikores being the broader, more encompassing term for those who cause others to stray. This distinction is vital for understanding why such individuals are subject to the severe ruling of "מצוה לאבדם."

Shorshei HaYam: Preserving the Memory of the Wicked

The Shorshei HaYam on Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:2 delves into the prohibition of mentioning the names of the wicked, drawing from Tosafot in Megillah 23a. The Tosafot there state that one should not mention "Yaakov Minaya" (Jacob the Heretic) by name, based on the verse "שם רשעים ירקב" (the name of the wicked shall rot). The Shorshei HaYam raises a kushya from Avodah Zarah 17a, where R' Akiva mentions "Yaakov Ish Kefar Sichniya," another known heretic.

"ושמעתי מקשים על דבריהם מההיא דאמרינן בפ"ק דע"ז די"ז ע"א א"ל עקיבא הזכרתני פעם א' הייתי מהלך בשוק העליון של צפורי ומצאתי תלמיד אחד מתלמידי יש"ו ויעקב איש כפר סכנייא שמו א"ל כתוב בתורתכם לא תביא אתנן זונה כו' הרי שהזכיר לאותו רשע בשם יעקב והתוספות שם כתבו ויעקב כו' אין זה יעקב מינאה דבפרק א"מ דף כ"ח דרמא סבא לרבי אבהו דודאי אותו רשע לא היה מאריך ימים כל כך אלא נראה דההוא שבא לרפאות את בן דמה הוא אבל יעקב מינאה דרבי אבהו יכול להיות שהוא אותו דפרק כסוי הדם דף פ"ו גבי רבא יע"ש הרי בכמה מקומות מזכיר שם זה בשם מינאה ומלבד כל זה ק"ל מה שהכריחו לגירסתם מדכתיב שם רשעים ירקב דביומא סוף פ' אמר להם הממונה דל"ח ע"ב אמרינן מאי ושר"י אמר ר"א רקובית תעלה בשמותם דלא עסקינן בשמייהו מותיב רבינא מעשה בדואג בן יוסף כו' ומשני חזי מאי סליק ביה ועיין בתוס' שם ד"ה דלא מסקינן בשמייהו שכתבו דכל דאיכ' אחר צדיק מסקינן בשמיה יע"ש וכיון שכן אין מקום למה שהכריחו התוס' דלא גרסי' יעקב מדכתיב שם רשעים ירקב." (Shorshei HaYam on Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:2:1)

Translation (summarized): "I have heard questions raised against their words from that which we say in Avodah Zarah 17a, where R' Akiva mentions a disciple of Yeshu named Yaakov Ish Kefar Sichniya, thus mentioning a wicked person by name. Tosafot there differentiate between this Yaakov and Yaakov Minaya, arguing they are different people. Besides this, it's difficult to accept their forced reading based on 'שם רשעים ירקב,' as in Yoma 38b, it implies we don't 'deal with their names' (לא עסקינן בשמייהו), but Tosafot there explain that if there is another righteous person with the same name, we can mention it. Given this, there is no basis for Tosafot's (in Megillah) insistence not to read Yaakov based on 'שם רשעים ירקב'."

The chiddush of Shorshei HaYam is a critical re-evaluation of Tosafot's stance. He questions the absolute prohibition on mentioning wicked names, especially when there's ambiguity or an alternative interpretation. This reflects a tension between the ideal of eradicating the memory of the wicked and the practical need to refer to historical figures. While the Rambam mandates active eradication for certain Jewish transgressors, Shorshei HaYam highlights the scholarly debate on how this extends to their legacy and remembrance. The underlying principle remains: the community must be protected from the influence of heresy, even if the method of achieving this (e.g., semantic eradication) is debated.

Friction

A significant point of friction arises from the Rambam's classification of Jewish transgressors, particularly the "אוכל נבילות להכעיס" (one who eats non-kosher out of spite). The Lechem Mishneh (cited by the Seder Mishnah) points out an apparent contradiction:

Kushya: In Hilchot Teshuvah 3:9, the Rambam states, "שני מיני מומרים הם: מומר לעבירה אחת... והוא שיעשה להכעיס" (There are two types of mumarim: one who transgresses a single mitzvah... and that is if he does it to provoke). This clearly labels one who eats nevelot out of spite as a mumar. However, in Hilchot Gezelah Va'Avedah 11:2 and Hilchot Rotze'ach 4:10, the Rambam refers to "אוכל נבילות להכעיס" as an apikores. This is problematic because apikorsim (those who deny fundamental tenets of Judaism) are subject to the severe ruling of "מצוה לאבדם" and lose their share in Olam Haba, as stated in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:2 and Hilchot Teshuvah 3:6. The status of a mumar is generally less severe than that of an apikores in terms of Olam Haba and the mandate for active eradication. Is the "אוכל נבילות להכעיס" an apikores or merely a mumar? The inconsistency in terminology suggests a lack of clarity on his precise halachic status and the appropriate response.

Terutz (Seder Mishnah): The Seder Mishnah offers a sophisticated resolution by proposing that "אוכל נבילות להכעיס" possesses two distinct but overlapping titles: mumar and apikores.

1. Mumar (Specific): The term mumar (from the root מ.ר.ר, meaning "bitter" or "rebellious") specifically denotes one who rebels against God's command out of spite or provocation ("להכעיס"). This individual, though believing in God and Torah, intentionally defies a specific mitzvah to express rebellion. This is the context in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:9, where the Rambam is categorizing types of rebellion.
2. Apikores (General/Broader): The term apikores (from the Greek epikouros, meaning a follower of Epicurus, who denied divine providence) generally refers to one who denies fundamental tenets of faith. However, the Seder Mishnah explains that the Rambam sometimes uses apikores in a broader sense, to refer to anyone who rejects the authority of the Torah or God's will. One who transgresses "להכעיס" is not merely acting out of desire (leta'avon), but is actively challenging divine authority. This act of defiance, which leads others astray and undermines faith, can be considered a form of apikorsut in its practical implications for the community, even if the individual does not deny God's existence or Moshe's prophecy in a philosophical sense. This broader usage of apikores would apply in contexts like Hilchot Gezelah Va'Avedah and Hilchot Rotze'ach, where the focus is on the individual's dangerous impact on society and the integrity of Torah law.

Thus, the Seder Mishnah concludes that the Rambam's usage is not contradictory but rather nuanced. "אוכל נבילות להכעיס" is a mumar in his direct act of rebellion, but his actions also place him in the category of apikores due to the broader implications of his defiance and its potential to corrupt others. The Rambam chooses the term that best highlights the relevant aspect of the individual's transgression in each specific halachic context. This dual classification underscores the severity of acting "להכעיס" and justifies the harsh measures prescribed for apikorsim even for this particular type of transgressor.

Intertext

Devarim 23:7: Differentiating National Obligations

The Rambam's stark pronouncements in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1-2 regarding idolaters, particularly the command "לא תחנם," finds a fascinating counterpoint in Devarim 23:7: "לֹא תְתַעֵב אֲדֹמִי כִּי אָחִיךָ הוּא לֹא תְתַעֵב מִצְרִי כִּי גֵר הָיִיתָ בְאַרְצוֹ" (You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your kinsman. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a stranger in his land).

This verse highlights a crucial distinction in the Torah's approach to different nations. While "לא תחנם" (Do not be gracious to them) is generally understood as applying to the Canaanite nations and idolaters who pose an existential threat to the Jewish presence in Eretz Yisrael and to monotheistic faith, Devarim 23:7 explicitly forbids abhorring Edomites and Egyptians, citing kinship and historical hospitality respectively. This demonstrates that the Torah's commands are not a blanket policy of animosity towards all non-Jews. Rather, they are highly contextual, reflecting specific historical relationships, geographic imperatives, and the nature of the religious threat posed by particular groups. The prohibition of "לא תחנם" is directed at those who are actively entrenched in idolatry and whose presence in the land or influence on the Jewish people is seen as corrosive to the covenantal relationship with God. This contrast underscores that the severe rulings in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1-2 are not universal moral statements about all non-Jews, but rather specific legal injunctions applicable to a defined category of idolaters and a particular historical context.

Sanhedrin 57a: The Noahide Covenant and Ger Toshav

The Rambam's subsequent halacha (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:3) directly addresses the ger toshav (resident alien), stating: "בְּגֵר תּוֹשָׁב מִצְוָה לְהַחֲיוֹתוֹ, וּמְרַפְּאִין אוֹתוֹ חִנָּם" (Regarding a ger toshav, it is a mitzvah to sustain him, and we heal him for free). This stands in stark contrast to the previous halacha (10:2) regarding idolaters, where one should not save them.

The definition of a ger toshav is intrinsically linked to the Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach (Seven Noahide Laws), as discussed in Sanhedrin 57a and extensively codified by the Rambam himself in Hilchot Melachim U'Milchamoteihem 8:10-11. A ger toshav is a non-Jew who accepts upon himself the observance of these seven universal laws (prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, incest, theft, eating a limb from a living animal, and the establishment of courts of justice).

This distinction is a powerful intertextual link. It clarifies that the extreme measures of "לא תחנם" are reserved for those who actively reject the most fundamental principles of monotheism and universal morality. For non-Jews who uphold the basic Noahide covenant, not only is passive non-rescue lifted, but there is an active mitzvah to sustain and heal them. This provides a crucial framework for understanding the moral boundaries set by the Torah: the severity of Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1-2 is a response to the profound religious and existential threat posed by idolatry and heresy, but it is not a blanket policy for all non-Jews, particularly those who adhere to fundamental ethical monotheism.

Psak/Practice

The principles laid out in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1-2, while foundational, undergo significant attenuation and reinterpretation in practical halacha for the post-Talmudic era.

1. "לא תחנם" and Saving Idolaters: The direct implication of "לא יעלהו" (do not lift him out) has been largely mitigated.

   • Darkei Shalom: Rambam himself, later in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:5, states: "מְפַרְנְסִין עֲנִיֵּי גּוֹיִים עִם עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם" (We sustain the poor of idolaters along with the poor of Israel for the sake of peace). This principle of Darkei Shalom (ways of peace) is universally invoked by poskim (halachic decisors) to justify actions that foster good relations with non-Jews, including saving lives or providing medical care, even to idolaters, to prevent animosity and maintain societal harmony.
   • Definition of Idolater: Many poskim argue that contemporary non-Jews, particularly Christians and Muslims, are not considered "עובדי כוכבים" in the same strict sense as the ancient idolaters described in the Torah and Talmud. Their worship, though not Jewish, often contains elements of monotheism or does not involve the direct veneration of physical idols. This re-evaluation further reduces the scope of "לא תחנם" (see Responsa Rivash no. 157, Rema YD 148:12).
   • Active vs. Passive: While the Rambam distinguishes between active harm (forbidden) and passive non-rescue (permitted for idolaters), the Darkei Shalom principle often pushes the line towards active rescue in practice, especially in cases of direct threat to life (pikuach nefesh).

2. Eradicating Mosrim, Minim, Apikorsim: The command "מצוה לאבדם" (it is a mitzvah to eradicate them) for Jewish transgressors is highly theoretical in modern halacha.

   • Sovereignty and Beit Din: This halacha assumes the existence of a Beit Din Gadol (Great Court) with the authority and power to enforce such severe penalties, typically in an era of Jewish sovereignty. Such conditions do not exist today.
   • Practical Application: In the absence of such a Beit Din, the practical application shifts to intellectual refutation, social ostracism, and preventing their influence from spreading within the Jewish community. Physical harm is explicitly forbidden in contexts where a Beit Din cannot properly adjudicate and execute judgment. The emphasis moves from physical eradication to spiritual and communal protection.
   • Meta-Psak Heuristics: The Rambam's meticulous categorization of transgressors and his precise language (e.g., mumar vs. apikores) highlight the severity of these offenses in principle. This impacts how Jewish law views apostasy and heresy, even if the practical punishments are not applied today. It serves as a meta-psak heuristic for prioritizing the spiritual health and integrity of the Jewish people.

Takeaway

Rambam's Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1-2 establishes a rigorous framework for Jewish separation from and confrontation with idolatry and heresy, outlining distinct and severe responses for idolaters versus Jewish transgressors. While the halachic principles remain foundational, their practical application in contemporary contexts is significantly tempered by principles of Darkei Shalom, re-evaluations of who qualifies as an "idolater," and the absence of a sovereign Beit Din.