Misva #29: Worshipping Aboda Zara

The second of the Ten Commandments (Shemot 20:5) includes the prohibition, “Lo Ta’ovdem,” which forbids worshipping foreign deities. This prohibition differs from the preceding command – “Lo Tishtahaveh Lahem” (“Do not bow to them”) – which forbids performing certain rituals before a statue that express reverence and submission, such as bowing and sacrificing. The prohibition of “Lo Ta’ovdem,” by contrast, forbids worshipping a foreign deity in the accepted mode of worship for that deity, even in a manner that would otherwise be considered disrespectful or irreverent. The classic example is the worship of Pe’or, an ancient pagan deity whose followers served it by defecating on it. If a person defecates on a statue of Pe’or, then even if his intention is to degrade the statue, nevertheless, he is in violation of the command of “Lo Ta’ovdem.” Another example is Markulis, a statue which was worshipped by throwing stones. If somebody throws a stone at this statue, he violates the command of “Lo Ta’ovdem” even if he intended to express disdain. A third example is Kemosh, a god which was worshipped by pulling one’s hair out before it. One who does this violates “Lo Ta’ovdem” even if his intention was to offend the idol. As idolatry is included in the Sheba Misvot Beneh Noah (seven Noachide Laws), this prohibition is binding even upon gentiles. Furthermore, idolatry is one of the transgressions which one must avoid even at the threat of death. One must refuse to worship a foreign deity even if he would be killed as a result. Likewise, the Gemara in Pesahim (25) addresses the case of a gravely ill patient suffering from a condition whose cure requires worshipping an idol. The Gemara rules that this patient may not worship the idol, even if he will otherwise die from his illness. One who violates this command intentionally is liable to capital punishment, and one who does so unintentionally (meaning, he was unaware that such an act is forbidden) must bring a Hatat (sin-offering). The Poskim address the question of whether one is liable to punishment, or required to bring a sacrifice, if he makes a verbal declaration, such as “Eli Ata” – “You are my god,” without performing any action. Does a verbal declaration qualify as a “Ma’aseh” (action) for which one would be liable to punishment, or required to bring a sacrifice if this is done unintentionally? The Gemara establishes that “Akimat Sefatayim” – moving one’s lips to articulate – is treated by Halacha as a “Ma’aseh.” The Poskim raise the question of why, if this is the case, the prohibition of Giduf – blaspheming G-d – is considered a “Lav She’en Bo Ma’aseh,” a violation which does not entail an action, and for which one is therefore not liable to punishment. Why is blaspheming not considered a “Ma’aseh,” if it is done through “Akimat Sefatayim”? The Maharam Shick (Hungary, 1807-1879) explains that blaspheming is treated as a “Lav She’en Bo Ma’aseh” because it does not necessarily require “Akimat Sefatayim.” Certain letters, he explains, can be vocalized without moving one’s lips at all (such as vowel sounds), and uttering these sounds therefore does not qualify as a Halachic “Ma’aseh.” Hence, if somebody blasphemes G-d, and a person who hears him makes a sound without moving his lips that expresses his agreement with the blasphemy, that second person has violated the prohibition of blasphemy without having performed an action. The Maharam Shick thus explains that since this prohibition can be transgressed without a “Ma’aseh,” it is considered a “Lav She’en Bo Ma’aseh” even if one transgresses in the usual fashion, by moving his lips. By the same token, the Maharam Shick writes, if somebody serves an Aboda Zara verbally, by declaring his acceptance of the foreign deity, this would fall under the category of a “Lav She’en Bo Ma’aseh.” Since this could be done without moving one’s lips, we treat this prohibition as a “Lav She’en Bo Ma’aseh” even in a case where one declares allegiance to the deity by moving his lips. Therefore, one who does so would not be liable to punishment or be required to be a Hatat, even though he has, quite obviously, transgressed a grave violation.