Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 7-9

Sugya Map

• Issue: The mitzvah to destroy avodah zarah (idolatry) and its accessories, and the concomitant prohibition against deriving benefit (issur hana'ah) from them. This includes a taxonomy of what constitutes avodah zarah (objects, trees, buildings, natural phenomena), how it becomes forbidden, and the mechanisms for its nullification (bitul).
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Scope of bitul: Can a Jew nullify avodah zarah? Can an idol be nullified after a Jew acquires it?
  • Geographic distinction: Obligation to "hunt" for avodah zarah in Eretz Yisrael vs. Chutz La'aretz.
  • Mixtures: The unique stringency regarding avodah zarah in mixtures (issur hana'ah) – it never batel b'rov (nullified in a majority).
  • Permitted benefit: Distinguishing between objects made for worship vs. aesthetic purposes; natural objects vs. man-made.
  • Business ethics: Restrictions on trade with idolaters around their holidays, and selling items that aid their worship or cause harm.
• Primary Sources:
  • Deuteronomy 7:2, 7:5, 7:25-26, 12:2-3, 27:15.
  • Exodus 34:15-16.
  • Babylonian Talmud: Avodah Zarah (esp. 19b, 21a, 29b, 34b, 41a-b, 42b, 43a-b, 44b, 45a-b, 46a-b, 47a-b, 48a-b, 50a, 51b, 52a-b, 53a-b, 54b, 64b, 71b, 74a-b), Shabbat 73a, Bava Kama 72a, Chullin 8b, Me'ilah 14a, Temurah 28b-29a, 34a, Yevamot 82a.
  • Sifrei Devarim, Parashat Re'eh, Piska 61.

Text Snapshot

Mitzvah to Destroy

"מצות עשה היא לאבד עבודה זרה ומשמשיה וכל הנעשה בשבילה, שנאמר: 'אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות' (דברים יב,ב), ונאמר: 'ונתצתם את מזבחותם'." Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 7:1

Geographic Distinction

"ובארץ ישראל מצוה לרדוף אחריה עד שתאבד מכל ארצנו. ובשאר ארצות אינו מצוה לרדוף אחריה אלא כל מקום שנכבוש אותו אנו חייבין לאבד כל עבודה זרה שבו, שנאמר: 'ואבדתם את שמם מן המקום ההוא' (דברים יב,ג) – מאותו מקום אתה חייב לרדוף אחריה, ואי אתה חייב לרדוף אחריה בשאר ארצות." Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 7:1

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:

• The double lashon "אבד תאבדון" (Deut. 12:2) is often expounded by Chazal to imply intensifying the mitzvah, or to include both the avodah zarah itself and its accessories. The Rambam here applies it broadly.
• The phrase "מצות עשה היא" (it is a positive commandment) grounds the entire discussion in a fundamental Torah obligation.
• The distinction between Eretz Yisrael and Chutz La'aretz hinges on the milah mancha "מן המקום ההוא" (from that place), which the Rambam interprets as limiting the active pursuit of avodah zarah to the Holy Land. This dikduk of "ההוא" is key.

Readings

Tzafnat Pa'neach (R. Yosef Rozin, d. 1936) on MT 7:1:1

The Tzafnat Pa'neach (TP) zeroes in on the Rambam's distinction regarding bitul avodah zarah between Eretz Yisrael and Chutz La'aretz. The Rambam states that in Eretz Yisrael, there's an active obligation "לרדוף אחריה" (to pursue it) until it's eradicated, while in Chutz La'aretz, this obligation only applies to places we conquer. The TP notes that this distinction is indeed explicit in Sifrei Devarim, Parashat Re'eh, Piska 61, and mentioned in Avodah Zarah 45b.

TP's Chiddush: The TP raises a kushya from Kiddushin 37a, which states "מה עבודה זרה מיוחדת..." (what is special about avodah zarah...). The Gemara there discusses mitzvot that are teluyot ba'aretz (dependent on the land). The TP implies a difficulty: if avodah zarah has aspects not applicable in Chutz La'aretz, why is it not considered a mitzvah ha'teluyah ba'aretz in the same vein as others discussed there? Furthermore, Tosafot in Avodah Zarah 21a states that the prohibition of "לא תביא תועבה" (Deut. 7:26) – not to bring an abomination into your house – does not apply in Chutz La'aretz. If so, there are even more distinctions.

The TP resolves this by suggesting that Eretz Yisrael is considered "מוחזקת היא והויא שלו אף קודם כיבוש" (it is considered held and belonging to Him [God] even before conquest). This implies a fundamental sanctity that requires a deeper cleansing. The Rambam also mentions in Hilchot Melachim 8:9 that Bnei Noach (Noahides) are commanded regarding avodah zarah, indicating its universal gravity. The TP also references Sanhedrin 90a where "עשה דונתצתם" (the positive command to destroy) is considered a fundamental aspect of avodah zarah, hinting at its overarching importance. The TP's chiddush lies in harmonizing the Rambam's specific geographic distinction with broader halachic principles of Eretz Yisrael's unique status and the universal nature of avodah zarah prohibitions, even when their application differs.

Nachal Eitan (R. Tzvi Hirsch Chajes, d. 1856) on MT 7:10:1

The Nachal Eitan (NE) delves into the Rambam's ruling in MT 7:10 regarding mixtures involving avodah zarah. The Rambam states that avodah zarah, its accessories, and offerings are always forbidden, "בין מועט בין מרובה" (whether little or much), meaning they never batel b'rov. Furthermore, if a prohibited item (davar assur) from avodah zarah falls into a mixture, the whole mixture is forbidden. However, if "כוס אחד מן התערובות ונפל לכוסות שנים" (one cup from the mixture falls into two other cups), the second mixture is permitted. This is a classic case of safek sefeika (double doubt).

NE's Chiddush: The NE highlights a kushya raised by the Kessef Mishneh (KM): In Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:10, concerning rimonim shel orlah (pomegranates of orlah – fruit from the first three years of a tree's growth), the Rambam requires three mixtures (safek sefeika deshalosh ta'aruvot) for permissibility, whereas here for avodah zarah he only requires two. Why the discrepancy?

The KM offers a terutz: Orlah pomegranates are a "דבר שיש לו מתירין" (something that can become permitted, e.g., if separated), which is generally treated more stringently in mixtures. The NE challenges this terutz from Zevachim 74b, where Terumah (priestly tithe) is discussed. The Gemara there seems to imply that Terumah, even though it "יש לה מתירין" (can become permitted, to a Kohen), is not necessarily more stringent in mixtures. The NE clarifies the Gemara in Zevachim, explaining that Terumah in that context is not truly a "דבר שיש לו מתירין" for an Israelite, as it remains forbidden to him forever. Therefore, the Gemara's leniency there doesn't contradict the general principle that a "דבר שיש לו מתירין ממש" (a truly nullifiable item) is more stringent. So, the KM's terutz stands.

The NE further addresses a Peri Chadash (PCH) kushya on the KM: The Maggid Mishneh (MM) on Hilchot Yom Tov permits safek sefeika even for a "דבר שיש לו מתירין." The NE distinguishes: The MM refers to beitza shenoladah b'Yom Tov, where the issur (prohibition) is derabbanan (Rabbinic) from the outset. In such cases, safek sefeika is more readily applied. However, orlah's issur is de'oraita (Biblical), and thus more stringent, even concerning safek sefeika when it has matirin. Moreover, the NE suggests that a safek sefeika of two mixtures is less potent than a safek sefeika where the issur was never established with certainty (like the egg, whose birth date is truly unknown). In the case of mixtures, the issur was certainly established in the first mixture, making the subsequent leniency of safek sefeika more difficult to achieve, especially for a davar chashuv like orlah. The NE's chiddush is in meticulously parsing the nature and severity of different issurim and their implications for bitul and safek sefeika rules.

Friction

The Knot: Safek Sefeika and the Stringency of Avodah Zarah vs. Davar Chashuv

The most potent kushya arises from the Rambam's seemingly contradictory rulings on safek sefeika (double doubt) in mixtures. In Hilchot Avodah Zarah 7:10, he rules that if an avodah zarah item (which never batel b'rov) falls into a mixture, and then one item from that mixture falls into two more permitted items, the second mixture is permitted due to safek sefeika. This implies that two doubts suffice for avodah zarah. However, in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:10, regarding rimonim shel orlah (pomegranates of orlah), which are also davar chashuv (an important item that doesn't batel b'rov), the Rambam explicitly requires three mixtures for permissibility. Why the disparity? Is orlah more stringent than avodah zarah? This seems counter-intuitive given the severity of avodah zarah.

The Unraveling: Distinguishing Issur Hana'ah and Issur Achilah

The Nachal Eitan, building on the Kessef Mishneh, offers a compelling terutz. The Kessef Mishneh initially suggests that orlah is davar שיש לו מתירין (an item that can become permitted – by waiting three years), which generally warrants greater stringency. However, as the Nachal Eitan notes, this terutz alone is insufficient, as the concept of davar שיש לו מתירין itself is complex.

A more robust terutz, which the Nachal Eitan hints at and other Acharonim elaborate upon, distinguishes between the nature of the prohibitions:

1. Severity of Prohibition: While avodah zarah carries the most severe issur hana'ah (prohibition of benefit) and issur achilah (prohibition of eating), the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Avodah Zarah 7:10 specifically concerns issur hana'ah for the entire mixture. The Gemara (Zevachim 74b, the source for this halacha) discusses a case where one may not eat the entire mixture, but may sell it to a gentile and then destroy the value of the forbidden item. This suggests a distinction.
2. Rambam's View on Davar Chashuv: The Rambam holds that davar chashuv in the context of issurei hana'ah (like avodah zarah) is more lenient than davar chashuv in the context of issurei achilah (like orlah for eating). The Chachamim did not apply the same stringent gezeira (Rabbinic decree) of requiring three mixtures for issurei hana'ah that they did for issurei achilah. The Siftei Kohen (YD 110:52) explicitly states this, explaining that for issurei achilah, which are frequently encountered and directly involve consumption, the Chachamim imposed a stricter safeguard (requiring three mixtures) to prevent laxity. For issurei hana'ah of avodah zarah, which are generally less common and carry an intrinsic repulsion, the Rabbis felt two doubts were sufficient.
3. Nature of the Doubt: As the Nachal Eitan suggests, the nature of the safek sefeika might differ. In the orlah case, the issur is de'oraita and definitively established on a specific pomegranate. The subsequent mixtures create doubts, but the underlying severity leads to a stricter requirement. For avodah zarah, while the issur hana'ah is severe, the Gemara might view the safek in the second mixture as more robust, especially when considering the practical implications of destroying vast quantities of permitted items.

Therefore, the terutz posits that the Rambam maintains a subtle but critical distinction between the stringency of the prohibition itself and the scope of the Rabbinic safeguards applied to it in mixtures. While avodah zarah is intrinsically more severe, the gezera regarding safek sefeika in mixtures is calibrated differently based on whether it is primarily issur hana'ah or issur achilah, and the frequency of its occurrence.

Intertext

The Lamb of Pesach Mitzrayim: A Paradigm of Nullification

The Rambam (MT 8:1 fn 8) alludes to the Pesach Mitzrayim lamb as a foundational example of an animal worshipped by pagans which, when not "manipulated by man" for avodah zarah, remains permitted for Jewish use. Exodus 12:5 specifies that the Paschal lamb must be "כבש" (a lamb) or "עז" (a goat), both animals worshipped by the Egyptians. The command to slaughter it publicly (Ex. 12:6) was a direct affront to Egyptian idolatry, symbolizing a fundamental break. This illustrates the principle in MT 8:1 that "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]." The lamb, as a natural creature, retains its inherent permissibility despite being an object of foreign worship, provided no specific idolatrous act was performed with it. This stands in stark contrast to man-made idols which are forbidden mei'az nitztara (from the moment they are sculpted/created with idolatrous intent). This narrative reinforces the theological distinction between God's creation and human-made objects of worship.

Ir HaNidachat: The Ultimate Cherem

The prohibition "Let nothing which is condemned cling to your hand" (Deut. 7:26, referenced in MT 7:2 fn 6) is primarily associated with Ir HaNidachat (a condemned city, Deut. 13:13-19). In such a city, all property, including that of innocent residents, becomes cherem (devoted for destruction) and is forbidden for benefit. The Rambam draws a parallel: just as the property of an Ir HaNidachat becomes cherem due to the sin of its inhabitants, so too avodah zarah and its accessories become cherem and forbidden for benefit. This parallel underscores the extreme gravity of idolatry, equating it to the most severe communal transgression in halacha. The Megillat Esther on Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 194) explicitly connects these. The unique stringency of avodah zarah never being batel b'rov (MT 7:10) also echoes the unmitigated destruction and prohibition of cherem from Ir HaNidachat, where even a minuscule part contaminates the whole. This intertextual link reveals a deep conceptual unity in halacha regarding the absolute rejection of idolatry and its associated material culture.

Psak/Practice

The Rambam's rulings in Hilchot Avodah Zarah 7-9 have significant ramifications for halachic practice, particularly in a contemporary world where Jews often live in close proximity to non-Jewish cultures and institutions.

The Rema's Lenient Approach to Images

A crucial meta-psak heuristic arises from the Rema's glosses on Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 141. The Rambam (MT 7:7-8) provides detailed criteria for determining if an image is avodah zarah or merely aesthetic, primarily based on location (village vs. city entrance) and symbolic objects (staff, globe, etc.). The Rema (YD 141:3) notes that "since paganism is not common at present, we assume that these forms were made for artistic purposes." This represents a substantial kulah (leniency) in psak, shifting the chazakah (presumption) from suspicion of idolatry to presumption of art. While one still may not keep such an image, benefit from it is permitted. This reflects a broader halachic trend to distinguish between historical idolatry and contemporary non-Jewish religious practices, especially those not involving physical idols in the classical sense.

The Question of Churches in Eretz Yisrael

The Rambam's distinction in MT 7:1 regarding the obligation to "hunt" for avodah zarah in Eretz Yisrael (but not in Chutz La'aretz) raises a pressing modern halachic question. Footnote 10 on MT 7:1 directly asks: "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?" The prevailing psak among most contemporary poskim (halachic authorities) is to avoid active destruction. This is often based on several factors:

1. Lack of Jewish Sovereignty (historically): The mitzvah to eradicate avodah zarah is often understood as a communal obligation that applies when Jews have full sovereignty over the land, which has been historically intermittent.
2. Definition of Avodah Zarah: Many poskim (following Tosafot on Sanhedrin 63b) consider Christianity, with its belief in a corporeal God, to be shituf (association, i.e., associating God with another entity) for gentiles, which is not strictly avodah zarah for them in all respects, though forbidden for Jews. Other opinions consider it avodah zarah even for gentiles. Even if it is avodah zarah, the Rema's approach to images might extend to buildings, where the intent is not purely idolatrous in the classical sense.
3. Peace and Darkei Shalom: In modern times, maintaining diplomatic relations and darkei shalom (ways of peace) with non-Jewish nations is a significant consideration, especially in a diverse society. Active destruction could lead to severe chilul Hashem (desecration of God's name) and endanger Jewish communities globally.
4. Individual vs. Communal Obligation: While the mitzvah is a positive commandment, its kiyum (fulfillment) in this context is generally understood as a communal, not individual, obligation.

Thus, while the Rambam's text presents a clear-cut obligation, its application in contemporary Eretz Yisrael is nuanced, reflecting a complex interplay of halacha, historical context, and pragmatic considerations.

Takeaway

The Rambam meticulously delineates the severe prohibitions surrounding avodah zarah, emphasizing its absolute non-nullification in mixtures and the distinct halachic obligations in Eretz Yisrael. However, subsequent Acharonim and contemporary psak often apply these principles with sensitivity to changing historical realities and the paramount importance of darkei shalom.