Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Nine

Halachot 1-5 deal with the prohibition against doing business with idolaters on and before their holidays. Avodah Zarah 6a mentions two reasons for these prohibitions:
a) The gentile will be satisfied with his good fortune and give thanks to his idol on his festival. Thus, the Jew will be violating the command, “Do not place a stumbling block before the blind” (i.e., do not lead others to sin), since his acts provide the gentile with a reason to give thanks to his false deity.
b) Because of the transaction he made with the Jew, the gentile will have more money available to use for offerings to his false deity.

Because he will be satisfied that he has relieved himself of the financial burden (Avodah Zarah 2a).

Since the Jew has no real support for his loan, the possibility exists that the gentile will try to avoid repaying it. Hence, the sages allowed him the leniency of collecting the loan under these circumstances.

Avodah Zarah 11b explains that since the economic fortunes of the Jews are more dependent on the gentiles in the Diaspora, the Sages did not enforce this prohibition as severely there.

This is a punishment instituted by the Sages to insure that their enactments would be observed (Meiri).

Avodah Zarah 64b-65a mentions the examples of Rav Yosef and Ravva, two of the greatest sages of the Talmud, who sent presents to gentiles on their holidays because they knew that these individuals did not worship idols.

Avodah Zarah 6b relates that a gentile brought a present to Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi on a gentile festival. Resh Lakish was sitting before Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yehudah explained that he was in a delicate predicament. He did not want to accept the gift, lest the gentile give thanks to his god, nor did he want to refuse it, lest ill-feelings be created. Resh Lakish suggested that he should cause the gift to be lost in a manner in which the gentile will think it happened by accident.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 148:5) mentions Resh Lakish’s advice. The later authorities, however, favor following the Rambam’s directives rather than risk creating ill-feeling.

Avodah Zarah 8a mentions Saturnalia and other eight-day festivals as examples of this law.

The term “Canaanites” is a censor’s alteration. The original texts of the Mishneh Torah state “Romans” or “Christians.”

The Rambam does not mention the prohibition against doing business on Shabbat here, since that is forbidden in all cases independent of any connection to idol worship.

Note the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 148:6, which substitutes the word שר (officer) for king.

The Ra’avad mentions an opinion which differentiates between the birthday of the king, which is celebrated by the nation as a whole (see Genesis 40:20 regarding the Pharaoh’s birthday), and that of a private individual.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 1:3), the Rambam describes the shaving of the head as a pagan rite in which the sides of the head are shaved and a streak of hair is left in the middle. He associates this with the forbidden shaving of the corner of the head mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachot 1-6.

The Ra’avad mentions that it is even permitted to do business with his subjects.

Rabbenu Nissim, commenting on Avodah Zarah 11a, explains that this custom was instituted as an expression of honor to the deceased, as if to say: no one else is fit to use your utensils.

To cite a contemporary example of this contrast: the difference between the Christmas observance of devout Christians and the popular Western celebration of the festival.
This and the following halachot deal with a variety of different social and business interactions with gentiles. Many of the prohibitions involved are safeguards against idol worship, and thus are not necessarily observed at present in relation to most gentiles, for the reasons mentioned at the beginning of the chapter. In other cases, the prohibitions were instituted for purposes that are not associated with pagan rites — e.g., to protect against assimilation. Thus, prohibitions of these kinds are still observed at present.

The prohibition applies at all times, not only in proximity to a pagan festival.

The Rambam is speaking about articles which are not only used for idol worship, but are frequently used for other purposes as well.
It is significant to mention that the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 151:1) takes a very lenient perspective on this prohibition and states that it applies only when the idolaters could not acquire the article elsewhere. If, however, it is easily available to them, there is no prohibition against a Jew selling it to them.

Avodah Zarah 13b gives as an example, removing a chicken’s claw, which would prevent it from being used as a sacrifice for idol worship.

Some commentaries explain that with this statement, the Rambam alludes to the statement in Avodah Zarah 14a, that it is permitted to sell products in bulk to gentiles even though these products are used for idol worship. The size of the purchase indicates that the purchaser intends to sell the products to others and does not buy them for his personal use. Thus, even though the products may ultimately be used for idol worship, the Jew is not directly responsible for making such use possible. Hence, such a sale is not prohibited. (See the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 151:1.) Nevertheless, the Jerusalem Talmud states that if a gentile merchant is known to be a worshiper of idols, it is forbidden to sell him articles that are used for such worship, even when he purchases the articles in bulk.

The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 1:7) prohibits the sale of these animals because they were used to torment Jewish prisoners who were forced to appear as gladiators in the Roman coliseums.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah, loc. cit.), the Rambam states that the prohibition includes utensils used for torture as well as for war. See also Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat HaNefesh 12:12, where the Rambam repeats this entire halachah almost verbatim, but adds that it is permitted to sell shields to the gentiles.

Avodah Zarah 15b states that these prohibitions were instituted lest harm come to Jews through the gentiles’ use of these articles. Anyone aware of the precarious position of the Jewish community vis-a-vis the Roman rulers and the other gentile residents of Eretz Yisrael during the era when the Mishnah was composed can comprehend the reasons for the institution of such a prohibition.

In Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat HaNefesh 12:14, the Rambam explains the reason for this prohibition, “because this supports a transgressor and causes him to sin,” associating such a sale with the prohibition against “placing a stumbling block before the blind.”

The Rambam’s phraseology (which is also quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 151:6) implies that license is granted to sell only to a nation’s army and not to private individuals.

This halachah also has its roots in our nation’s history. Avodah Zarah 16a quotes Rav Ashi as permitting the sale of arms to the Persians because “they protect us.”
This and the previous halachah raise questions concerning a Jew’s position in the arms industry today. Surely, it is forbidden to provide weapons to countries that threaten the existence of Eretz Yisrael or oppress the Jews living among them. The question is whether it is permissible to sell arms to countries which on the surface pose no threat to the Jewish people. The Rabbis explain that these restrictions were instituted because of the harm that might befall Jews. This allows for the hypothesis that when there is no threat of such danger, there is no restriction. On the other hand, that rationale is not explicitly stated in the halachah, and license is granted only when such a sale benefits the gentiles who protect the Jewish people.

Our text follows the standard published editions of the Mishneh Torah. The authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the work, however, include this law in the subsequent halachah. The latter version reflects the manner in which these halachot are grouped in their source, the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 1:4. See also the Rambam’s commentary on that Mishnah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah, ibid.), the Rambam states this prohibition in a very straightforward manner:
It is forbidden to enter, and how much more so, to dwell or to do business with, a city which contains an idol....
Therefore, it is forbidden to enter, and how much more so, to dwell, in any city in a Christian country which possesses a church, since that is considered to be a house of idol worship. God forced us to dwell in such cities to fulfill His word [Deuteronomy 4:28]: “You shall serve gods that are the handiwork of man.”
The Ra’avad, however, states that this prohibition applies only to a city in which a fair for idol worship is being held. The Sages forbade walking in the city as a safeguard against doing business with the gentiles on the day of their festival. (See Halachah 1.) The Shulchan Aruch shares that interpretation, as stated in Yoreh De’ah 149:1.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that when a person has no alternate route, it appears that he is deriving direct benefit from the presence of an idol. If, however, he has an alternative, the idol’s presence is of no consequence. The Kessef Mishneh also explains (in response to the Ra’avad’s objections) that, although the phraseology of the halachah may not imply such, if there is an alternate route, the Rambam grants one license to travel through such a city a priori (לכתחילה).

Since the dome is considered to be an accessory to idol worship, building it is forbidden. Since, however, an accessory is not forbidden until it has actually been used in idol worship (Chapter 7, Halachah 4) one’s wage is permitted. (See also Chapter 7, Halachah 5.)

Such buildings are not considered to be accessories for idol worship. The Turei Zahav 143:4 recommends that one should avoid working in such construction, and permits such activity only when one works together with a gentile.

E.g., one may not take shelter in such a shop from rain or sun.

Rashi, Avodah Zarah 9:12, explains that the adornments are sold in stores that pay taxes to the gentile priests. Hence, by purchasing these or any products, one is offering benefit to the priests.

This law presents a problem regarding the sale of a synagogue to gentiles. Often, clients for such a sale are churches.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 9.

Since the Jew could not prevent the sale, there is no prohibition against benefiting from the money.

Generally, there are restrictions against making use of the gentiles’ legal system. If, as in this instance, there is no alternative to the sale, a person may make use of the gentiles’ legal system, since by doing so he protects his interests against any suits that may be lodged against him in the future.

These servants will become Canaanite slaves and are governed by the laws mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, Chapters 12 and 13.

Note the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 149:4), who states that these prohibitions do not apply at present in most countries. The commercial structure of the economy and the system of taxation have changed and taxes are generally not paid directly to a church or false deity.

The theme behind all these directives is that one is forbidden to benefit from the objects purchased. One may not, however, be a direct cause of the death of either a person or livestock.

See Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 17:10, which permits a Jew to attend a celebration made by a gentile if most of the participants are Jewish. One may, however, distinguish between the two laws. Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot speaks about any celebration, even one of a totally secular nature. Our halachah, in contrast, deals with a wedding feast, which is usually associated with religious rites.

Note the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 152:1, which (based on Avodah Zarah 8b) forbids a person who is known to be precise in his observance from attending such a feast even if it is held after the twelve months have passed.

Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot, Chapter 17, mentions prohibitions which resemble those mentioned in this halachah and extend to an even wider range. There, the Rambam explains that the reason for the prohibitions is to prevent assimilation. Thus, Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot refers to גוים (literally, “gentiles”), while our halachah mentions עובדי כוכבים (literally, “idolaters”).
Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot mentions the prohibition against eating all food prepared by gentiles (even if it is entirely kosher) which is fit to be served on a king’s table. These prohibitions are discussed by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah, Chapter 113.

This prohibition applies even if she is offered a wage for these services (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 154:2). Although throughout this text, we have frequently translated עובד כוכבים as “gentile,” in this halachah it is translated literally as “idolater.” Chapter 10, Halachah 2, states that, in contrast to our relations with an idolater, we are allowed to offer medical treatment to a gentile who observes the seven universal laws given to Noah. Seemingly, the same leniency would also apply to delivering and nursing their babies.

The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) restricts this license only:
a) to a professional midwife (for no animosity will result from an amateur’s refusal to accept such a responsibility), and
b) during the week (since it is forbidden to violate the Shabbat laws to save a gentile’s life. See Hilchot Shabbat 2:12.)

Although there is no prohibition against using a gentile wet-nurse, it is improper to do so “because the milk of a gentile deadens the heart’s [spiritual] sensitivity and brings about undesirable traits. (Rama, Yoreh De’ah 81:7).

Our translation of תרפות is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 2:3. There he mentions that a similar term is used for the female genitalia. The Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2:3) explains that the term is related to the word תרפים found in Genesis 31:19.

This prohibition was instituted lest the Jew give thanks to the false deity for his good fortune.

The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 149:5, states this law with regard to “a fair where idols are sold,” implying that the idols are the primary goods sold there, thus distinguishing them from the commercial fairs mentioned in Halachah 14.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 9.

Relations with such a person combine the stringencies that apply both to relations with gentiles and to Jews. He is bound by those stringencies involving relations with gentiles — since we can assume that he will worship idols, and, hence, we may not trade with him on his way to the fair lest he offer thanks for his good fortune. Those that apply to Jews also apply to him — since he is still Jewish, and bound by all the Torah’s laws.