Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 6

Sugya Map

• Primary Issue: The definition of ma’aseh (action) regarding Ov (necromancy) and Yid’oni (divination) and its impact on the liability for chatat (sin offering) versus sekilah (stoning).
• The Conflict: Whether Ov and Yid’oni require an overt, physical act (ma’aseh) to trigger liability, or if the performative nature of the ritual itself constitutes the ma’aseh.
• Nafka Mina:
  • Liability for chatat in cases of shogeg (inadvertent action).
  • Whether Ov and Yid’oni are considered a single prohibition or distinct violations, affecting the number of chatat offerings required if performed simultaneously.
• Primary Sources: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 6:1-3; Sanhedrin 65a-b; Keritot 3a; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 7:10.

Text Snapshot

Maimonides writes:

"כיצד מעשה האוב? אדם עומד ומקטיר קטרת ידועה, ואוחז מקל של הדס בידו, ומניף בו, ומדבר דברים ידועים בלחש... וכיצד מעשה הידעוני? אדם מניח עצם מעוף ששמו ידוע בתוך פיו, ומקטיר קטרת, ועושה מעשה, עד שיפול כמתנבא..." (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 6:1-2).

Nuance: The Rambam insists on miktir (offering incense) as a constitutive element. The dikduk here is vital: by defining the "action" through the lens of incense, he sidesteps the ambiguity of whether the mere act of "speaking" or "holding a bone" constitutes a ma’aseh sufficient for capital punishment or chatat. He anchors the prohibition in the physical labor of the ritual.

Readings

The Peri Chadash’s Synthesis

The Peri Chadash struggles with the Rambam’s consistency across Hilchot Shegagot and Hilchot Avodat Kochavim. He notes that Maimonides classifies Ov and Yid’oni as requiring ma’aseh. If they both require ma’aseh, the Peri Chadash argues the Rambam must be ruling in accordance with Reish Lakish (who holds that "division of death" creates distinct liabilities) rather than Rabbi Yochanan. However, he concludes that because Maimonides specifies that Yid’oni involves miktir (incense), he effectively creates a unified standard of ma’aseh that satisfies both schools of thought. The chiddush here is the Peri Chadash’s realization that Rambam is not merely codifying a school of thought, but defining a physical threshold—without the miktir, the ritual is legally "silent."

The Tzafnat Pa’neach’s Analytical Split

The Rogatchover Gaon (Tzafnat Pa’neach) identifies a deeper structural issue: why does Maimonides emphasize miktir in both cases? He suggests that Maimonides treats the incense as the ma’aseh that transforms the act into avodah zarah. For the Rogatchover, the Ov is not just "talking to the dead," but a specific avodah (service) offered to a power. By requiring miktir, Maimonides removes the psychological/internal state from the equation and replaces it with an objective, observable, sacrificial act. The chiddush is that the prohibition is not against the "necromancy" itself, but against the "priestly service" performed in the name of the ritual.

Friction

The Strongest Kushya: The tension between the Gemara in Sanhedrin (65a) and the Rambam’s codification is palpable. The Gemara debates whether the "action" of Ov is the haktarat ketoret (offering incense) or the hakashat zero’otav (the waving of the arms/wand). If the ma’aseh is the waving, why does the Rambam consistently emphasize the incense?

The Terutz: Maimonides holds that there are multiple types of Ov. By requiring miktir, he is not denying that other actions (like the waving) exist, but he is defining the minimal threshold for chatat liability. In Hilchot Shegagot, he needs a clear, objective act to trigger the chatat offering. Thus, he selects the miktir as the common denominator. Where there is no miktir, there is no ma’aseh—meaning, according to the Rambam, such an individual would be exempt from chatat (as they lack the requisite ma’aseh), even if they remain in violation of the prohibition. He prioritizes the halachic precision of the sacrificial system over the folk-magical definitions of the ritual.

Intertext

• Leviticus 19:31: "Do not turn to the ovot..." The Sifra (Kedoshim) and the Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 7:10) serve as the bedrock for the Rambam’s assertion that this verse constitutes the azharah (warning) for the practitioner.
• Deuteronomy 16:21-22: "Do not plant an Asherah..." The Rambam bridges the gap between Ov/Yid’oni and Asherah by focusing on the "pagan nature" of the act. He treats the monument and the kneeling stone as parallel to the Ov ritual: they are prohibited not because of their intent (even if directed to God), but because they are "pagan-coded" (chukkoteihem).

Psak/Practice

The Rambam’s ruling on the "kneeling stone" (even maskit) serves as a foundational heuristic for modern psak regarding synagogue aesthetics and behavior. The requirement to use a chatzitzah (mat or barrier) between the face and the stone floor is a direct application of the Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 6:6-7. The practice is not about the internal intent of the worshiper, but about avoiding the "appearance of the foreign." The meta-psak is clear: in matters of avodah zarah and its derivatives, external form dictates the issur, regardless of the internal kavanah.

Takeaway

The Rambam transforms the mystical, often murky practices of necromancy into a rigid framework of avodah (service), stripping away the "magic" to reveal the structural avodah zarah underneath. For the analyst, the takeaway is that ma’aseh—the objective, physical act—is the only valid currency for halachic liability in the realm of prohibited customs.