Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 8 and 9) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 255 and 256) consider the prohibitions against performing the deeds associated with an ov and a yid’oni to be two of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The Rambam’s expression implies that the reply is only imagined and is not actually heard by the inquirer. This is consistent with his statements in Chapter 11, Halachah 16, that these practices (and the other means of divination and magic mentioned there) are emptiness and lies that have no real substance.

See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:7, where he elaborates on the description of this practice.

Rashi (Sanhedrin 65b) states that a yidua is a wild beast. Most commentaries accept his opinion. The Rambam’s statements appear to be based on the Zohar (Vol. III, p. 184b) which describes Balak as a master of this form of divination and states that he performed it using a bone from a bird.

Performing these acts involves the acceptance of entities apart from God as sources of influence. From the commentaries of Rashi and Ramban to Deuteronomy 18:11, it appears that the divinations performed with an ov and a yidoni are a combination of sorcery and idolatry. For the intent is to perform sorcery, yet there is a dimension of servitude to the impure powers one seeks to call on. Therefore, sometimes, these divinations are described as types of idolatry and, sometimes, as sorcery.

In a number of places, the Torah mentions the punishments to be conferred on those who perform these acts. In those verses, however, there is no explicit commandment forbidding such deeds.

Molech was an Ammonite deity whose worship is mentioned several places in the Torah and the prophets. (See I Kings 11:7, II Kings 16:3, 23:10.) Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 7) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 208) consider the prohibition against worshiping Molech to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

In Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.), the Rambam mentions that the warning against this service is “repeated in the Torah.” The first prohibition states that Molech worship is prohibited. The second defines that worship as passing one’s child through fire (Kessef Mishneh).

See the latter half of the following halachah.

Our translation follows the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah. The authoritative manuscripts read “with their (i.e., the priests’) permission.”

The Maharik maintains that the son walks on his own power.

The Rambam’s statements are based on Sanhedrin 64b and the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 7:10). The Kessef Mishneh and others object to the Rambam’s interpretation of these sources. They prefer Rashi’s interpretation, which states that the father compelled the son to run through the flames.

The Ramban, in his Commentary to the Torah (Leviticus 18:21), takes issue with the Rambam’s statements and maintains that the son was burned to death in this service. The Meiri elaborates in support of the Rambam’s view, explaining that this service was an initiation rite, consecrating the son unto Molech’s service.

Were the rite to involve cremation of the son, one would be liable even when one performed it in service of another deity, since it would resemble bringing a burnt offering (Kessef Mishneh).

In this instance as well, the Kessef Mishneh maintains that the father causes the son to walk through the fire, but does not carry him.

The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol explains that such a person is not held liable, because being punished for one's transgression brings about atonement. A person whose defiance of God is great enough to motivate him to give over all of his children to the worship of Molech is not granted the opportunity for atonement.

All these laws are based on Sanhedrin 64b.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 11) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 493) consider the prohibition against erecting a monument to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Genesis (28:18) relates how Jacob set up a monument for the worship of God. Afterwards, however, this practice was accepted by idolaters. Thus, what was beloved in the time of the ancestors became “hated” in the era of their descendants (Sifri, Shof’tim).

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 12) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 349) consider the prohibition against prostrating oneself on a stone to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Megillah 22b derives this concept from Genesis 37:10: “Shall your mother and I... come to prostrate ourselves before you on the earth.”

The Temple courtyard and the Temple building were paved with stones, and the Jews and the priests would prostrate themselves there.

Megillah 22b, 23a mentions this concept in connection with the recitation of the Tachanun prayers, which certain individuals would recite lying spread out on the floor. (See Hilchot Tefillah 5:13-14.) At present, in Ashkenazic communities, this issue is relevant during the High Holiday services, when it is customary to prostate oneself several times.

Megillah, loc. cit., mentions these alternatives specifically.

I.e., bowing down with his face to the ground.

This punishment is given for the violation of a Rabbinic command.

As mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 2, one is held liable for prostrating oneself to a false deity even when this is not the accepted mode of serving that deity.

From the Rambam’s expression, it would appear that the transgressor’s face would have to touch the ground. From Sanhedrin 65a, however, it appears that one is liable even when one merely bent over in deference to the false deity.

The commentaries note that the Sifri, the source for this halachah, states that the prohibition applies throughout the entire Temple Mount (an area much larger than the Temple courtyard). Avodat HaMelech resolves this difficulty on the basis of the Rambam’s statements (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:10) that the Temple courtyard can be extended to include the entire Temple Mount, but no further.

An asherah is a sacred tree or pole associated with the worship of a fertility goddess.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 13) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 490) consider the prohibition against planting a tree in the Temple courtyard to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The commentaries question whether this “extra restriction” is merely a Rabbinic decree added as a safeguard to the Biblical prohibition, or whether it is included within the scope of that prohibition itself. The Rambam’s statements here (and similarly, his omission of the entire matter in Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit.) lead to the conclusion that he believes that this restriction is rabbinic in origin. [Though he mentions a Biblical verse as a prooftext, that citation is merely an asmachta (support) which the Rabbis used after making their decree.]

Beams that did not protrude were, however, placed within the Temple building for support (I Kings 6:10) and for the purpose of ornamentation (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:8).

Both here and in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:9, the Ra’avad protests against the Rambam’s statements, noting that during the Hakhel celebrations, a wooden platform was constructed for the king, and that the High Priest’s chamber was made of wood. He offers two possible resolutions:
a) The prohibition forbade only the construction of permanent structures, not temporary ones like the king’s platform;
b) The prohibited area — “near the Altar of God” — began in the Courtyard of the Priests and did not apply in the Courtyard of the Israelites and the Women’s Courtyard where the problematic structures were found. See the notes to Hilchot Beit Habechirah where the subject is discussed in detail.