The Project pt 8: The Divine Code – The first chapters on idolatry

The rest of the first chapter in Part II of the Divine Code which focuses on idolatry is a mixed bag, containing useful points and some more non-law elements.

It attempts to build a foundation for what follows with the next topic.

The main prohibition against idol worship is not to serve one of the creations … (topic 2, Chapter 2, Part II, The Divine Code)

The author makes it clear that whether the thing is physical or non-physical, it’s forbidden to give it active divine worship.

This foundation leads the author to go into two main directions in this chapter. Firstly, he goes into the subject of worshipping an intermediary, a go-between, some elevated being alongside God and a discussion amongs rabbis about whether it is just the belief in such a “middle-man” or the active worship of that intermediary that constitutes idol worship. It is useful in that the conclusion is made clear which is that active divine worship of the go-between constitutes idol-worship, not necessarily the belief on its own.

And this makes sense since the seven laws are about actions not beliefs. But the difference between the seven laws and Weiner’s “Noahide Code” is belief.

Would a Gentile court need all the footnotes or could we do without and just get to the point when it comes to our record of the details of this law? The court wouldn’t deal with simple belief. But as Weiner’s “Noahide Code” is more about a personal code of morality … I guess this sort of thing could be omitted from court books and left for community teachers and parents and families.

The rest of this chapter in the Divine Code is a record of Maimonides rendition on the development of idolatry from intermediary worship. As interesting as that is, I’d put it in the “to be omitted” section of the righteous Gentile court screening process. I believe it has no legal or court worth.

Chapter 2 is a matter of dispute in so many ways. It is called “The Prohibition of Turning to Idol Worship.” I personally find it frustrating. Why? Because this chapter is not one of the seven laws or part of the commandments. It is the next chapter that deals with the meat of the actual law, differentiating between those acts which bring liability and those which don’t. See what it says in a footnote of this chapter to prove my point.

However, this is forbidden for a Jew, because of the prohibition “Do not turn to the idols” (mentioned in topic 1). See topic 4, which explains that the basic reason for all the mentioned prohibitions in this chapter for Gentiles are precautions, lest one be drawn after an idol. But when there are practical reasons for a Gentile to enter a house of idol worship, it is permitted. This constitutes the basic difference between this command to Jews and to Gentiles. The Jewish prohibition, even though logically based, is obligatory in any case. But the Gentile is prohibited from a totally rational basis , so therefore in specific instances when there are other considerations in which the basic logic doesn’t apply, the prohibition is lifted. (footnote 19, Chapter 2, Part II, The Divine Code)

You see, the Jews have a divine command not to turn to idols. The source of the command is God. Whether a Jew accepts it rationally or not, whether he can think of a reason to break it, he shouldn’t because of the divine element. As this footnote necessarily implies, the prohibitions in this whole second chapter of the section on idolatry do not have the divine element. They are what Weiner considers to be rational obligations.

Now this is a very important point. Why? Because Weiner has no authority over Gentiles and what he considers to be rational is something that can be questioned. Without authority behind these precautions, they are, at best, suggestions. One cannot be accused of breaking the law of idolatry by ignoring Weiner’s advice. If a rabbi, any rabbi, Weiner included, says “I consider (or declare) this or that to be rational,” a rational person can reply, “good for you, my equal; prove it.” The rabbi has stepped out of simply expounding on the seven laws, stepped out of the authority he borrowed by detailing the actual seven laws that were divinely enjoined upon humanity and now must convince the listener/reader (unless the Gentile listener/reader has chosen to make this rabbi an authority over him, an authority that is given and thus can be taken away by the individual).

He does not convince me at times.

What is remarkable is that this chapter is filled with “this is forbidden” and “that is forbidden” and “this is prohibited.” But it is only based on someone’s rationale. Therefore, since “forbidden” means “commanded against,” and the commander is not God but rabbi Weiner’s rationale, then, again, I’m only dealing with suggestion and advice and “forbidden” is the wrong word, as is “prohibited.”

I already know what some say and believe. Some say that rabbi Weiner is using his wealth of knowledge of the “oral Torah” to teach us what is objectively rational. But all I see in this chapter is this sort of rationality:

“God commanded the Jews not to do x. You Gentiles are prohibited too, but the command just doesn’t come from God.”

If it’s not God commanding, then who is it? But rabbi Weiner does raise a basis for this sort of thinking: Maimonides, and here I come to an issue I have with Maimonides.

In footnote 16 of this chapter in the Divine Code, rabbi Weiner says,

It is clear from Rambam, Laws of Kings 9:2, that all the forms of idolatry are forbidden to Gentiles.

And this is what Maimonides (Rambam) says.

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. (Laws of Kings, 9:2, Mishneh Torah, emphasis mine)

Please take careful note of what I highlighted, because here I hit upon what seems to me to be an utter contradiction between Maimonides and the Talmud. I’ll highlight the relevant part again. It’s taken from tractate Sanhedrin 56b.

Surely it has been taught: With respect to idolatry, such acts for which a Jewish Court decrees sentence of death [on Jewish delinquents] are forbidden to the heathen; but those for which a Jewish Court inflicts no capital penalty on Jewish delinquents are not forbidden to him.

Here is the total opposite of what Maimonides says. Maimonides says a Gentile is forbidden to do any idol worship even those which don’t get a Jew doing the same act the death penalty. The Talmud states that a Gentile is not forbidden from doing such acts!

Weiner sides with Maimonides. And here I am, the outsider to whom these laws apply, and I have what I consider a greater authority, the authority even Maimonides is based on, saying one thing on one hand, and on the other hand, Maimonides contradicts it.

Now it’s easier for me because I already have a lens chosen. And that lens says “any breaking of the seven laws gets the death penalty.” And even Maimonides says that later in Laws of Kings, the same chapter, nine, law 14. So by that standard and what the Talmud says, Maimonides can’t be stating a law, only his advice. He doesn’t have authority over Gentiles either.

“Oooooh, be careful, David! Getting too big for your boots! You’re making yourself higher than rabbis.”

Wait! If God didn’t put them over me, and he didn’t, how am I getting too big?

But a counter to my claim that Maimonides contradicts the Talmud is that the Hebrew(?) words are different in both resources. Maimonides uses one Hebrew word which is interpreted by Jewish translators as “forbidden” and the Talmud uses a different Hebrew word which Jewish translators interpret as “forbidden.” The counter-argument may be that since they are different words, there is no contradiction.

An easy response would be the Jewish translators translate both terms with the same word meaning that there is an overlap in the concept (remembering that words represent concepts). I could add that checking Jastrow’s dictionary of the Talmud both words can be translated as “to be forbidden.” Every resource I have about Sanhedrin 56b and its wording uses the language of warning, what is forbidden and prohibited, saying that certain acts are not forbidden, warned about or prohibited to Gentiles. Maimonides’ words contradict the tenor of the Talmud.

Now of course the typical retort is this. “Well, David, if it’s not commanded, or prohibited, by God, then are you saying that doing acts not forbidden are totally ok? Surely that’s what you’re saying.”

It’s a shame this is a written article. If someone literally said that to me verbally, then I could use the joke from Naked Gun’s Leslie Nielsen and retort, “No I’m not, and don’t call me Shirley.” But again, it doesn’t work in text form. *chuckle*

But no, when it comes to the seven commandments, they deal with actions that bring the liability of the death penalty, implying actions that the courts can deal with. But there is a morality outside of the courts. The law does point to ideals. The issues again here, as I noted in previous parts of this series, wording. If the rabbis had just used the word “wrong” or “immoral” or even “against Torah principles” then I could deal with it. But instead Weiner uses the words “commanded,” “forbidden,” and “prohibited.” That gives a different message. I don’t think it is a good thing for a person to embrace or kiss an idol, but I couldn’t say “you’re breaking the seven commandments by doing this.” As I have no authority over the person, I couldn’t say “you’re forbidden from doing that,” because that implies a command where there is no command. But I can give reasons why it is wrong or ill-advised or immoral.

I think what I’m gonna do next is take apart chapter 2 of this section on Idolatry piece by piece, topic by topic, or something like that, and really interrogate the matter. Or something like that.

May God have mercy on me. I don’t want to share wrong stuff, but I ain’t a “just eat what you’re given” kinda guy. We’ll see.