The Project pt 7: The Divine Code, the beginning of “Idolatry”

Let me get back on the saddle and get back to the project. So, some time ago I started going through a book supposedly about the seven commandments for humanity called “The Divine Code.” I was judging it based on a lens I described in an earlier article. I’ve been through the first part, “Fundamentals of the Faith,” which dealt with a lot of stuff that had little to nothing to do with the seven laws, as can be seen by the fact that it was about “the Faith,” the religion, and not the commandments or the law.

That’s not to say it’s totally useless or wholly irrelevant. There are some important and good parts.

Anyway, now this next part of the book goes into one of the laws, the prohibition of idolatry. It doesn’t follow the Talmudic ordering of the seven laws. But at least I should be getting into the meat of the actual commandments rather than … hmmm … let me just get on with it.

But first there is an introduction from rabbi Immanuel Schochet. I find myself somewhat torn reading through it. Whereas the law of idolatry concerns actions, I feel the introduction dwells too much on faith, belief and ideas. It goes beyond the law and goes into assumption. For example,

Avodah zarah is not restricted to religious service of anything apart from the Godhead. It includes any assumptions of there being selfcontained beings or forces that are not totally dependent on God and His Providence.

This may be true for Jews. But the law of idolatry (“avodah zarah“) for Gentiles does not include assumptions.

But, David, he’s dealing with idolatry as a concept.

Then he’s not dealing with the law of idolatry for Gentiles then. It’s that simple.

Now I know, I know, foundational concepts are important. But shouldn’t this have all been dealt with in the so-called “Fundamentals?” To be blunt, since so much of this introduction is in the following pages, and a lot of it isn’t about the actual Gentile Torah law against idolatry, the introduction is kinda redundant. I think it can be wholly scrapped.

Now we get to the actual meat of the subject.

Unfortunately, with the very first topic, Weiner starts on shaky ground. And I’m saying that in a nice way.

I’ll quote it in full.

The Master of the universe commanded Adam in the prohibition against serving idols, as it says, “And the Lord God commanded [upon] Adam …,” meaning that God commanded Adam to submit to His Divinity. The Sages explained that there are three meanings in this: “I am God; do not exchange Me” – to rebel and replace Me with another god, which is the prohibition of idolatry.

“I am God; do not curse Me” – this being the prohibition of blaspheming God’s Name, since for God’s honor one must not disgrace and blaspheme Him.

“I am God; the fear of Me shall be upon you” – this being the obligation to fear God. The prohibition of idolatry has two facets: the command to recognize and know God, and the prohibition against serving idols. Anyone who does not recognize and believe in God is a “deviant believer” (see Part I, topic 1:7). Likewise, anyone who serves idols denies all of God’s commandments (since he does not accept God’s Sovereignty), as well as His honor and His True Existence. (topic 1, chapter 1, Part 2, The Divine Code)

For me, personally, this first topic is like a game of “spot the errors.”

Reading through this, I wonder to myself what happened. What stopped the writer from simply detailing a prohibition against worshipping idols? Instead he goes through this first topic trying to insert an active and positive command into a prohibition. It’s only in the next topic that he actually starts dealing with the actual prohibition. And he’s not consistent in this practice. For the parts concerning forbidden sexual partners, theft and murder, he goes straight into the law, more or less. But for the parts concerning cursing God’s name, eating meat from a living animal, and the law of justice, he feels the need to add some “introduction”… and that’s after an introduction?!?

So why do I take issue with this topic? Because of the lens.

Compare and contrast. Here’s Weiner’s claim.

The prohibition of idolatry has two facets: the command to recognize and know God, and the prohibition against serving idols.

What does the Talmud say?

Only negative injunctions are enumerated, not positive ones. But the precept of observing social laws is a positive one, yet it is reckoned? — It is both positive and negative. (Sanhedrin 58b-59a, Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud)

So Weiner makes the claim that the prohibition of idolatry has two parts, an active command and a prohibition. But the Talmud says positive commands are not counted in the seven laws, only prohibitions, the only exception being the law of Justice (“social laws”). The Talmud and its commentaries flatly contradict Weiner’s claim. When Maimonides starts his chapter which lists the seven laws and goes into the prohibition of idolatry, he doesn’t face Weiner’s challenge of having to “clarify,” to insert some positive command, and makes no claim of there being two parts to the law against idolatry. It’s just a straight prohibition.

Another clear proof that there is no command for a Gentile to recognise and know God in the seven laws is the fact that, as the Talmud states in Sanhedrin 57a and its commentaries, and Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah (Laws of Kings, chapter 9, law 14), breaking any of the seven laws brings the liability of death. It’s plain and obvious that not recognising or knowing God brings no such punishment.

I thought I would check out what the Sefer haChinukh had to say about this topic. Thankfully it’s available on sefaria.org. What was amazing, which I did not expect, was that it confirmed my assertions in a number of ways.

Firstly, sections 25 and 26 of the book deals with the commandment of belief in God (including knowing and recognising him) and that we should not believe in other gods separately and respectively. What is relevant and striking is that section 25, about belief in God, mentions nothing about the seven laws. But in the latter section, section 26, forbidding belief in (or worship of) other gods, the seven laws are introduced/mentioned. It says the following.

And one who transgresses it and worshiped idolatry according to the way of its worship or – with the four worships that we wrote – [even] not according to the way of its worship, with witnesses and a warning, is stoned. And if it is inadvertent, he is obligated to bring a fixed sin-offering. And this commandment is included in the seven commandments that all the people of the world are commanded (Sanhedrin 56a). However, there are differences between Israel and the other nations in the details, and it is all elucidated there in Avodah Zarah.

So this mention in the latter section about idolatry, section 26, but its omission from the earlier section about belief in God is evidence that the writer is not of the same opinion as Weiner.

Secondly, the writer makes a stark point about the seven laws which excludes Weiner’s addition to the Gentile Torah law of idolatry. As section 26 closes, he writes this.

And there is yet another difference – as when the nations transgress one of their commandments, they are always liable for the death penalty.

Again, the evidence is clear. If recognition of God and knowledge of him were one of our commandments, even part of it, then a person failing to recognise and know God would be liable. There is not one scrap of evidence in the Divine Code or any other ancient Jewish source that I know of or has been shared with me that such a failure brings such liability.

It should be noted that in this part in the Divine Code, in the topic under scrutiny, there is no confirming footnote to say that some source explicitly makes this claim of a Gentile command to recognise and know God.

So you can see, I plainly disagree with Weiner’s claim based on the lens I referred to and other sources, not just myself.

What about the part where Weiner talks about how the Sages understood the phrase “And the Lord God commanded Adam,” where the prohibition of idolatry, the prohibition of blasphemy and an obligation to fear God are derived?

Let’s be blunt. Firstly, the Talmud does not derive an obligation to fear God from the third derivation, but rather the law of Justice!

R. Judah said: Adam was prohibited idolatry only, for it is written, And the Lord God commanded Adam. R. Judah b. Bathyra maintained: He was forbidden blasphemy too. Some add social laws. With whom does the following statement of Rab Judah in the name of Rab agree: viz., [God said to Adam,] I am God, do not curse Me; I am God, do not exchange Me for another; I am God, let My fear be upon you? – This agrees with the last mentioned [who adds social laws to the list]. (Sanhedrin 56b, Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud)

You’ll see that there are first three interpretations of “The Lord commanded Adam,” idolatry, “blasphemy,” and social laws (the law of Justice). This is then reiterated in three ways, “I am God, don’t exchange me (idolatry), I am God, don’t curse me (blasphemy), and I am God, let my fear be upon you (social laws).” The text is not straight out commanding the fear of God. Even the Soncino edition adds a footnote to the last one about “fear of God” stating the following in footnote 25 of Sanhedrin 56b.

Let my fear be upon you’ is an exhortation to dispense justice uprightly, without fear of man.

So it’s not as cut and dry as Weiner puts it.

Add to this some obvious facts. Maimonides tries to write down all the oral laws without all the discussion that the Talmud has. If the fear of God were such an important part of the law of idolatry, why, when he records the law of idolatry, does he only state the following?

A gentile who worships false gods is liable provided he worships them in an accepted manner.

A gentile is executed for every type of foreign worship which a Jewish court would consider worthy of capital punishment. However, a gentile is not executed for a type of foreign worship which a Jewish court would not deem worthy of capital punishment. Nevertheless, even though a gentile will not be executed for these forms of worship, he is forbidden to engage in all of them.

We should not allow them to erect a monument, or to plant an Asherah, or to make images and the like even though they are only for the sake of beauty. (law 2, chapter 9, Laws of Kings and Wars, Mishneh Torah)

Where is the so-called “other facet of the law of idolatry?” Nowhere to be seen. The Sefer haChinukh makes no mention of this.

On many points, it can be seen that this extra aspect of a prohibition against idolatry, this command to recognise and know God, is an invention of rabbi Weiner. The lack of a clearly stated original source, the lack of backing from earlier sources, the qualitative fact of what it takes to be part of the seven laws, the fact it is a positive command that has no liability attached, the exact opposite of what one of the seven laws should be, fact after fact makes Weiner’s invention more and more implausible.

I do not argue that the knowledge of God is not important. I don’t claim that knowing God has nothing to do with avoiding idol worship for some. I don’t deny that for Adam, accepting God’s supremacy was related to rejecting idolatry. That’s all nice and philosophical.

But when it comes to actual law, what is concretely one of the seven laws, there is absolutely no command upon Gentiles to know and recognise God.

The final part of this topic in the Divine Code that I’m focusing on says this.

Anyone who does not recognize and believe in God is a “deviant believer” (see Part I, topic 1:7). Likewise, anyone who serves idols denies all of God’s commandments (since he does not accept God’s Sovereignty), as well as His honor and His True Existence. (topic 1, chapter 1, Part 2, The Divine Code)

So an atheist is a “deviant believer?” For a righteous court this may be irrelevant.

And, “legally,” if a Gentile serves idols, then what matters is that a capital case can be raised against him. Not much else. But is it true? For a Gentile, that is. Is it the worshipping of idols that means a denial of all the commandments?

On a certain level, I can see arguments against that. Now remember, I’m only going according to rabbi Weiner’s words here.

As you know, in this day and age, even atheists keep the laws of the community. For some odd reason, maybe the good in them, or the desire for social cohesion, they’ll go with community law. Maimonides taught that the seven laws can be kept for reasons other than their divine origin. He also added that the intellect inclines to the seven laws. In light of this, on the basis of this, if a righteous Gentile community included some atheists, an atheist in such a community may be able to accept the laws without accepting the God. Therefore, the specific charge that can be levelled at the atheist is that he rejects God’s sovereignty but it’s questionable whether he rejects the commandments. In fact, he may not reject the commandments at all.

Anyway, that’s just topic 1. Let’s see if I can go a bit further faster.