Episode 100: Noah Airmet on Covenantal Non-Dogmatism
Monday, May 4, 2026
Dale A. Brueggemann on the Egyptian Background to Luke 16:19-31
Another Egyptian descent story is that of Setne and his son, Si-Osire.
In this story, an Egyptian is allowed to return to the land of the living to
deal with a Nubian magician who has been overpowering Egypt’s magicians. This
emissary is reincarnated as Si-Osire, the child of Setne and his wife. At a
funeral for a rich man and a pauper, Si-Osire hears his father express his
longing that he might have the fate of the rich man. He subsequently takes his
father on a tour of the Underworld that highlights the fate of three classes of
the dead: those whose good deeds outnumber their bad ones, like the pauper;
those whose bad deeds dominate, like the rich man; and those whose good and bad
deeds essentially balance out. The tour shows the rich man degraded and the
pauper elevated to sit beside Osiris (compare Luke 16:19–31). When Si-Osire
grows up, he vanquishes the Nubian magician and returns to the Underworld.
(Dale A. Brueggemann, “Descent into the Underworld, Critical Issues,” in The
Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. [Bellingham, Wash.:
Lexham Press, 2016], Logos Bible Software edition)
Stephen De Young (EO) on Josephus's Comments about the Old Testament Canon in Against Apion
Commenting on Josephus, Contra Apion, 1.37-44:
Josephus does not merely express
this grouping of texts to be the Scriptures according to his opinion or to be
the canon as he received it from within his own community. Rather, he makes the
claim that every single Jewish individual on earth, from birth, recognizes
these and only these books. He further states that every one of those
individuals obeys these Scriptures and is willing to die rather than violate a
single command.
On its face, Josephus uses rather
extreme hyperbole. Newborn infants have no opinion on the relative authority of
various religious texts. Even a casual reading of the books that Josephus
endorses reveals that the vast majority of Jewish people paid little attention
to any of the commands of the Torah, let alone demonstrated a willingness to
die for them. While Jewish martyrs existed, particularly in the Maccabean
period as described in the books that Josephus here seems to marginalize, they
were certainly never the majority any more than one can generalize from the
Christian martyrs just how committed the majority of Christians were. Josephus
also denies the editorial activity within the various texts that make up the
Hebrew Bible, despite its being readily apparent even in translation.
Josephus was a member of the
party of the Pharisees. His view on which Scriptures were authoritative within
Jewish communities reflects this perspective, and the Pharisees would have
agreed with him. But, even within Palestinian Judaism, not everyone was a
Pharisee. Other religious parties existed in the first century within
Palestine, and these parties had different collections of Scriptures that
exercised authority within their communities. This is even more true of Jewish
communities scattered across Egypt, Ethiopia, Mesopotamia, and the Roman world,
reaching as far as Spain in that era. Josephus does not report objective fact
but rather asserts that he and his fellows are right, over against competing
parties. He goes a step further by asserting that everyone really knows that he
is right, even if he or she won’t admit it.
This proclamation by Josephus,
then, while an important early witness to the understanding of one slice of
Second Temple Judaism, is a flimsy basis on which to argue for the practice of
the Christian Church in contemporary society. It is especially weak given that
it conflicts with two millennia of Christian experience across the Christian
world. Among early Christians, each community received a set of authoritative
texts as its Old Testament based on the texts that held authority in the
preceding Jewish communities. Christian communities in Palestine received the
canon of Palestinian Judaism; those in Egypt, Alexandrian Judaism; those in
Ethiopia, Ethiopian Judaism.(Stephen De Young, The Whole Counsel of God: An
Introduction to Your Bible [Chesterton, Ind.: Ancient Faith Publishing,
2022], page 37 of 116, Kindle ed.)
Robert Alter on Isaiah 5:7
justice . . . jaundice . . .
righteousness . . . wretchedness. This translation proposes English
equivalents for the Hebrew wordplay, where the meaning of the two second terms
is somewhat different. The Hebrew is mishpat, “justice,” mispaḥ,
“blight,” and tsedaqah, “righteousness,” tseʿaqah, “scream.” (Robert
Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company,
2019], 2:636)
Robert Alter on שְׂכִיָּה (KJV: Pictures) in Isaiah 2:16
lovely crafts. The translation follows a scholarly proposal
for the noun sekhiyot, but its meaning is obscure, and the conclusion
about what it might be is dictated chiefly by the poetic parallelism. (Robert
Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company,
2019], 2:629)
Sunday, May 3, 2026
Radak (David Kimhi) on Jeremiah 17:9
Radak on Jeremiah 17:9:1
עקוב הלב. לפי שדבר על הבטחון שהוא רע
כשישים בטחונו באדם וזה תלוי בכונת הלב כמו שאמר ומן ה' יסור לבו כמו שפירש לפיכך דבר
בכונת הלב ואמר כי הלב עקוב יותר מכל דבר כלומר מרמה כי יוכל אדם להראות בפיו ובמעשיו
טוב ויהיה לבו רע ומי ידע זה בלתי האל לפיכך אמר מי ידענו. ואמר אני ה' חוקר לב והמרמה
תלויה בלב לא בפה ובמעשה כי אף על פי שתהיה לפעמים המרמה בפה שיאמר דברים שהכונה בהם
על שני פנים או יעשה מרמה בידיו הכל הוא בכונת הלב לפיכך אמר מכל כי אין דבר מרמה כמו
הלב: (source)
“The heart is crooked.” Since he has spoken
about trust, which is bad when a person places his trust in man, and this
depends on the intention of the heart, as he said, “and his heart turns away
from the Lord,” as he explained, therefore he speaks of the intention of the
heart and says that the heart is more crooked than anything else—that is,
deceitful. For a person can appear with his mouth and in his actions to be
good, while his heart is evil, and who can know this except God? Therefore he
said, “Who can know it?” And he said, “I, the Lord, search the heart,” and
deceit depends on the heart, not on the mouth or on action, for even though
deceit is sometimes in the mouth, when one says things that are intended to be
understood in two ways, or practices deceit with his hands, everything is
according to the intention of the heart. Therefore he said, “above all things,”
for nothing is as deceitful as the heart.
Radak on Jeremiah 17:9:2
ואנוש הוא. ענין כאב ושבר כמו אנוש כאבי
אנושה מכתי ויאמר על דרך השאלה בכאב הלב ביגון או בדאגה או בעסקים רעים או במחשבה לפיכך
אמר ואנוש הוא ואמר חרפה שברה לבי ואנושה:
“And it is incurably sick.” This is a term for
pain and brokenness, like “my wound is painful, my blow is severe,” and it is
said figuratively of heartache, grief, worry, evil circumstances, or troubled
thought. Therefore he said, “and it is incurably sick,” and he said, “My heart
is broken with shame, and I am sick.”
Robert Roberts’s High View of John Thomas
Dr. Thomas, of West Hoboken,
Hudson Co. New Jersey, U. S., has undoubtedly been the great instrument in the
hand of God in digging out, in the nineteenth century, the lost and hidden
treasure of the gospel. The scattered elements of “the truth” had here and
there shown themselves occasionally before his day. The Kingdom of God in some
of its aspects was believed in by a few, the worthlessness of human nature in
respect to immortality was here and there recognised by a stray Bible student;
baptism had long been practised as an essential religious rite, but it was left
to the remarkable man of whom we are speaking to collate and systematise the
truth and evolve it in the complete doctrinal development which is efficacious
for the salvation of men. In the accomplishment of this great work, he studied
much, and brought out many long lost ideas. He also detected the fallacy of
many a revered doctrine, and gave to the Book of God such an altered complexion
that the Bible which before time was enshrined in mystery, and cut off from the
sympathies of intelligent men, became transparent in its intelligibility, and
highly interesting in the grandeur of its revelations, and the adaptation of
its schemes to the wants of the world.
In attaining this magnificent
achievement, Dr. Thomas but yielded to the pressure of circumstances. It was
not a result upon which he had set his mind. He may be said to have drifted
into it through the studies forced upon him. His theological career was
emphatically a providential development as will be seen from the narrative that
is to follow. He did not design it; he did not incline it; it grew as the
result of circumstances acting upon his peculiarly constituted mind. This gives
the history of his life an interest proportionate to the love possessed for the
truth he was instrumental in developing. (Robert Roberts, “Dr. Thomas and His Mission,” The Ambassador of the
Coming Age 1, no. 1 [July 1864]: 9-10; this publication would later be
retitled The Christadelphian)
Further Reading:
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata Book 6, Chapter 18
The following is taken from Clement of Alexandria, Stromata Book 6, Chapter 18 (Migne, PG 9:396-97, 400-1):
Ὁ γνωστικὸς δ’ ἡμῖν ἐν ταῖς
κυριωτάταις δεῖ ποτε διατρίβει· εἰ δέ που σχολῇ καὶ ἀνέσει καιρὸς ἀπὸ τῶν
προηγουμένων, ἀντὶ τῆς ἄλλης ῥυθμίας καὶ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς ἐφάπτεται φιλοσοφίας, οἷον
τραγῳδῶν τι ἐπὶ τῷ δείπνῳ παρῃρμένος (5) οὐ τῶν κρειττόνων ἀμελήσας,
προσλαμβάνων δὲ, ἐφ’ ὅσον πρέπει, καὶ ταῦτα, δι’ ἃς προεῖπον αἰτίας. Οἱ δὲ τῶν
οὐκ ἀναγκαίων καὶ περιττῶν τῆς φιλοσοφίας δραχθέντες, καὶ μόνοις τοῖς ἐριστικοῖς
προσανέχοντες σοφίσμασι, τῶν ἀναγκαίων καὶ κυριωτάτων (6) ἀπελήφθησαν, οἵ τε
σκιασμῶς τῶν λόγων διώκοντες. Καλὸν μὲν οὖν τὸ πάντα ἐπίστασθαι· ὅσῳ δὲ ἀσθενεῖ
ἐπεκτείνεσθαι ἡ ψυχὴ πρὸς τὴν πολυμαθῆ ἐμπειρίαν, τὰ προηγούμενα καὶ βελτίω αἱρήσεται
μόνα· ἡ γὰρ τῷ ὄντι ἐπιστήμη, ἣν φάμεν μόνον ἔχειν τὸν γνωστικόν, κατάληψις (7)
ἐστὶ βεβαία διὰ λόγων ἀληθῶν καὶ βεβαίων ἐπὶ τὴν τῆς αἰτίας γνῶσιν ἀνάγουσα. Ὁ
δὲ ἐπιστήμων τοῦ ἀληθοῦς περὶ ὃ δοποιοῦν αὐτίκα καὶ τοῦ ψεύδους περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἐπιστήμην
ὑπάρχει. Καὶ γὰρ (8) οὖν εὖ πως ἔχει μοι φαίνεται ὁ λόγος ἐκεῖνος, εἰ
φιλοσοφητέον αὐτό· αὐτὸ γάρ τι αὐτῷ ἀκολουθεῖ· ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ μὴ φιλοσοφητέον (οὐ
γάρ τις καταγωγὴ τινὸς μὴ τοῦτο πρότερον ἐγνωκότος) φιλοσοφητέον ἄρα. Τούτων οὕτως
ἐχόντων, τοῖς Ἕλλησι χρὴ διὰ νόμου καὶ προφητῶν ἐκμανθάνειν ἕνα μόνον σέβειν
Θεόν, τὸν ὄντως ὄντα παντοκράτορα. Ἔπειτα (9) διὰ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου διδάσκεσθαι· «Ἡμῖν
(10) δὲ οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ»· ἐπεὶ μηδὲν ἀπεικόνισμα τοῦ Θεοῦ οἷόν τε ἐν
γενητοῖς (11) εἶναι· προπεπαιδεύσθαι δὲ, ὡς οὐδὲ τούτων ὧν γέγονεν ἀγάλματα, εἴη
ἂν αἱ εἰκόνες· οὐ γὰρ πω τοιοῦτον κατὰ τὸ σχήμα τὸ τῶν ψυχῶν γένος, ὁποῖα
διαπλάσσουσιν Ἕλληνες τὰ ξόανα. Ψυχαὶ μὲν γὰρ, ἀόρατοι, οὐ μόνον αἱ λογικαί, ἀλλὰ
καὶ αἱ τῶν ἄλλων (12) ζῴων· τὰ δὲ σώματα αὐτῶν μέρη μὲν αὐτῶν οὐδέποτε γίνεται
τῶν ψυχῶν, ὄργανα δὲ ὧν μὲν ἐνσχήματα, ὧν δὲ ἀσχήματα, ἄλλων δὲ ἄλλον τρόπον
σχήματα. Ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τῶν ὀργάνων τὰς εἰκόνας οἷόν τε ἀπομιμήσασθαι ἐνεργῶς· ἐπεὶ
καὶ τὸν ἥλιον τις, ὡς ὁρίζεται, πλάσσειε, καὶ τὴν ἶριν τοῖς χρώμασιν ἀπεικάζεσθω·
ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἀπολείπωσι τὰ εἴδωλα, τότε ἀκουσονται τῆς Γραφῆς, «Ἐὰν μὴ πλεονάσῃ
(13) ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλείον τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων,» τῶν κατ’ ἀποχὴν
κακῶν (14) δικαιουμένων, σὺν τῷ μετὰ τῆς ἐν τούτοις τελειώσεως καὶ τῷ τὸν
πλησίον ἀγαπᾶν, καὶ εὐεργετεῖν δύνασθε, οὐκ ἔσεσθε βασιλικοί (15). Ἡ ἐπίτασις γὰρ
τῆς κατὰ τὸν νόμον δικαιοσύνης τὸν γνωστικὸν δείκνυσιν. Οὕτω τις κατὰ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν
τοῦ οἰκείου σώματος τὴν κεφαλὴν τάξει, ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκρότητα τῆς πίστεως χωρίσας, τὴν
γνῶσιν αὐτήν, περὶ ἣν πάντα ἐστὶ τὰ αἰσθητήρια, ἀκροτάτης ὁμοίως τεύξεται τῆς
κληρονομίας. Τὸ δὲ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς γνώσεως σαφῶς ὁ Ἀπόστολος τοῖς διαφέρειν
δυναμένοις ἐνδεικνύεται, τοῖς Ἑλλαϊκοῖς ἐκείνοις γράφων Κορινθίοις οὕδε πως· «Ἔλπίδα
δὲ ἔχοντες αὐξανομένης τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν μεγαλυνθῆναι κατὰ τὸν κανόνα ἡμῶν
εἰς περισσείαν, εἰς τὰ ὑπερέκεινα ὑμῶν εὐαγγελίσασθαι»· οὐ τὴν ἐπέκτασιν τοῦ
κηρύγματος τὴν κατὰ τὸν τόπον λέγων· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐν «Ἀγάπῃ» πεπλεονάκεναι τὴν
πίστιν αὐτὸς φησίν. Φέρεται δὲ (16) καὶ ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ ἐν
«ταῖς Ἀθήναις» κηρύξας τὸν Λόγον· ἀλλὰ τὴν γνῶσιν διδάσκει, τελειωτὴν οὖσαν τῆς
πίστεως, ἐπείκεινα περισσεύειν τῆς κατηχήσεως κατὰ τὸ μέγαλεῖον τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου
διδασκαλίας, καὶ τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν κανόνα. Διὸ καὶ ὑποβάς, ἐπιφέρει· «Εἰ δὲ καὶ
ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλ’ οὐ τῇ γνώσει.» Πλὴν οἱ γε ἐπὶ τῷ κατεληφθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν
αὐχοῦντες τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἰπάτωσαν ἡμῖν παρὰ τίνος μαθηταὶ ἀλαζονεύονται. Παρὰ Θεοῦ
μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἂν φήσαιεν· παρὰ ἀνθρώπων δὲ ὁμολογοῦσι. Καὶ εἰ τοῦτο, ἢ τοιγε παρ’
ἐκείνων (17), οἵ τε ἐκμαθόντες, ὥσπερ ἄμελεῖ καὶ τετυφωμένοι τινὲς αὐτῶν αὐξοῦσιν,
ἢ παρ’ ἑτέρων τῶν ὁμοίων. Ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐχέγγυοι διδάσκαλοι περὶ Θεοῦ λέγοντες ἄνθρωποι,
καθό ἄνθρωποι· οὐ γὰρ ἀξιόχρεώς γε, ἄνθρωπός τε ὢν, καὶ περὶ Θεοῦ τάλῃς λέγειν,
ὁ ἀσθενὴς καὶ ἐπίκηρος περὶ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου, καὶ ἀφθάρτου, καὶ τὸ ἔργον περὶ τοῦ
πεποιηκότος. Εἴθ’, ὁ μὴ περὶ αὐτοῦ τάλῃς λέγειν δυνάμενος, ἄρ’ οὐ πλέον οὐδὲ τὰ
περὶ Θεοῦ πιστευτέος; Ὅσον γὰρ δυνάμει Θεοῦ λείπεται ἄνθρωπος, τοσοῦτον καὶ ὁ
λόγος αὐτοῦ ἐξασθενεῖ, κἂν μὴ Θεὸν, ἀλλὰ περὶ Θεοῦ λέγῃ καὶ τοῦ θείου λόγου. Ἀσθενὴς
γὰρ φύσει ὁ ἀνθρώπινος λόγος, καὶ ἀδύνατος φράσαι Θεόν· οὐ τοὔνομα λέγω· κοινὸν
γάρ τοῦτο οὐ φιλοσόφων μόνον ὀνομάζειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ποιητῶν· οὐδὲ τὴν οὐσίαν· ἀδύνατον
γάρ· ἀλλὰ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Θεοῦ. Καὶ τοι ἐπιγεγραμμένοι θεῖον
διδάσκαλον, μόνης εἰς ἔννοιαν ἀρκνοῦνται Θεοῦ, τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῖς
συλλαμβανούσης εἰς πᾶσαν ἐπίγνωσιν· οἷον θέλημα (18) θέλημα, καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ
Πνεύματι τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα θεωρεῖν ἐθίζοντες· ὅτι πνεῦμα τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐρευνᾷ.
Ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος. Μόνη τοίνυν ἡ παρ’ ἡμῖν
θεοδίδακτός ἐστι σοφία· ἀφ’ ἧς αἱ πάσαι πηγαὶ (19) τῆς σοφίας ἥρτηνται, ὅσαι γε
τῆς ἀληθείας στοχάζονται. Ἄμει δὲ ὡς ἂν τοῦ Κυρίου ἤκοντος εἰς ἀνθρώπους τοῦ
διδάξαντος ἡμᾶς, μυρίοι σηματόρες, καταγγελεῖς, ἑτοιμασταί, πρόδρομοι, ἄνωθεν ἐκ
καταβολῆς κόσμου, δι’ ἔργων, διὰ λόγων προμηνύοντες, προφῆτεντες ἐλεύσεσθαι, καὶ
ποῦ, καὶ πῶς, καὶ τίνα τὰ σημεῖα. Ἄμα τε προῤῥητὸν ὁ νόμος, καὶ προφήται. Ἔπειτα
δὲ, ὁ πρόδρομος (20) δείκνυσι τὸν παρόντα· μεθ’ ὃν οἱ κήρυκες τῆς ἐπιφανείας τὴν
δύναμιν ἐκδιδάσκοντες (21) μηνούσι μόνους, καὶ εἰδ’ αὐτοῖς ἅπασιν ἴσασιν, ἀλλὰ
Πλάτων μὲν Σωκράτης, καὶ Ξενοκράτει Πλάτων, Ἀριστοτέλης Θεοφράστῳ (22), καὶ
Κλέανθι Ζήνων· οἱ τοὺς ἰδίους μόνον αἱρετιστὰς ἐπεϊσσαν. Ὁ δὲ γε τοῦ διδασκάλου
τοῦ ἡμετέρου λόγος οὐκ ἔμεινεν ἐν Ἰουδαίᾳ μόνη, καθάπερ ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι ἡ
φιλοσοφία· ἐχύθη δὲ ἀνὰ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην, πεῖθων Ἕλληνας τε ὁμοῦ καὶ
βαρβάρους, κατὰ ἔθνος καὶ χώραν, καὶ πόλιν πᾶσαν, οἴκους ὅλους καὶ ἰδίᾳ ἕκαστον
τῶν ἐπαρχικῶν, καὶ αὐτῶν γε τῶν φιλοσόφων οὐκ ὀλίγους ἤδη ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν
μεθισταίς. Καὶ τὴν μὲν φιλοσοφίαν τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν ἂν ὁ τυχὸν ἄρχων κωλύσῃ, αἴγεται
παρακτῆμα· τὴν δὲ ἡμετέραν διδασκαλίαν ἔκτεσιν καὶ τῇ πρώτῃ καταγγελίᾳ
κωλύουσιν ὁμοῦ βασιλεῖς καὶ τύραννοι, καὶ οἱ κατὰ μέρος ἄρχοντες, καὶ ἡγεμόνες
μετὰ τῶν μισθοφόρων ἀπάντων, πρὸς δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀπείρων ἀνθρώπων,
καταστρατευόμενοι τε ἡμῶν, καὶ ὅση δύναμις ἐκκόπτειν πειρώμενοι· ἡ δὲ καὶ μᾶλλον
ἀνθεῖ· οὐ γὰρ ὡς ἀνθρωπίνη ἀποθνήσκει διδασκαλία, οὐδ’ ὡς ἀσθενὴς μαραίνεται
δωρεά· οὐδὲ μα ἄσθενὴς δωρεὰ Θεοῦ· μένει δὲ ἀκωλύτως, διωχθῆναι εἰς τέλος
προσηνευθεῖσα. Ἔτι περὶ μὲν ποιητικῆς Πλάτων (23) «Κόσμον γὰρ τὶ χρῆμα καὶ ἱερὸν
ποιητήν,» γράφει· «καὶ οὐκ οἶδ’ ὃς τε πρίν, πρὶν ἂν ἔνθεός τε καὶ ἔκφρων
γένηται.» Καὶ ὁ Δημόκριτος ὁμοίως· «Ποιητὴς δὲ ὅσα μὲν ἂν γράψῃ μετ’ ἐνθουσιασμοῦ
καὶ ἱεροῦ πνεύματος, καλά χαρὰ ἐστιν.» Ἴσμεν δὲ οἷα ποιηταὶ λέγουσι. Τοὺς δὲ τοῦ παντοκράτορος προφήτας θεοῦ οὐκ ἂν
τις καταπλαγείη, ὄργανα (24) θείας γεγονότας φωνῆς! Καθάπερ οὖν ἀνδριάντα ἀποπλασάμενοι
τοῦ γνωστικοῦ, μὴ μὲν ἐπεδείξαμεν ὡς ἐστι, μέγεθος (25) τε καὶ κάλλος ἦθους αὐτοῦ,
ὡς ἐν ὑπογραφῇ, δηλώσαντες· ὁποῖος γὰρ κατὰ τὴν θεωρίαν ἐν τοῖς φυσικοῖς, μετὰ
ταῦτα δηλωθήσεται, ἐπὴν περὶ γενέσεως κόσμου διαλαμβάνειν ἀρξώμεθα.
The true Gnostic ought sometimes to spend time on the
most important matters; but if there is leisure and opportunity, apart from
what has already been discussed, he also takes up Greek philosophy, just as
someone who, after dinner, listens to a tragedy—without neglecting the better
things, but taking up these too, as far as is appropriate, for the reasons I
mentioned earlier. Those who have grasped only the unnecessary and superfluous
parts of philosophy, and who attend only to contentious sophistries, have been
deprived of what is necessary and most important, since they pursue only the
shadows of words. It is, of course, good to know everything; but to the extent
that the soul is too weak to extend itself into wide-ranging experience, it
will choose the first and better things alone. For true knowledge, which we say
belongs only to the Gnostic, is a firm grasp by means of true and sure
arguments, leading to the knowledge of causes. The knower of what is true also
has knowledge of what is false in relation to the same thing. And indeed that
saying seems to me to hold well: one should philosophize about it, for
something in it is connected with what follows; but even if one should not
philosophize about it—since no one is led to this who has not first learned
it—still one must philosophize after all.
Given these things, the Greeks should learn from the
Law and the Prophets to worship one God only, the one who truly is, the
Almighty. Then they should be taught by the Apostle: “For us there is no idol
in the world,” since no image of God can exist among things that have come to
be. They should also be instructed that even among the things that are made,
the statues are not truly images of those beings, for the class of soul is not
at all such as the Greeks’ carved images represent. Souls are invisible, not
only rational souls but also those of other living creatures; and the bodies of
these creatures are never parts of the souls themselves, but rather
instruments—some shaped in one way, others in another. Nor can the images of
these organs be effectively imitated: for even if someone were to fashion the
sun, as it were, or depict the rainbow by colors, once the idols are gone, then
Scripture will be heard: “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes
and Pharisees,” those justified by mere abstinence from evil, together with the
perfection found in these matters and the love of neighbor, and unless you are
able to do good, you will not be royal. For the increase and intensification of
righteousness according to the Law shows the Gnostic. Thus someone, arranging
the head in relation to the ruling part of his own body, and separating it
toward the excellence of faith, will obtain knowledge itself—about which all
the senses are concerned—and will likewise obtain the highest inheritance. The
ruling part of knowledge is clearly shown by the Apostle to those capable of
discerning, when he writes to those Greek Corinthians: “Having hope that, as
your faith increases among you, we may be magnified according to our rule, unto
abundance, to preach the gospel to regions beyond you.” He is not speaking of
geographical extension of preaching; for he also says in “Love” that their
faith has abounded. The same thing appears in the Acts of the Apostles, and in
Athens, where he preached the Word; but he teaches knowledge, the completion of
faith, as something that should overflow beyond catechesis in accordance with
the greatness of the Lord’s teaching and the ecclesiastical rule. Hence he
adds, “Even if I am unskilled in speech, yet not in knowledge.” Still, let those
Greeks who boast that they have grasped the truth tell us from whom they
learned it. They will not say “from God,” but from human beings they admit it.
And if that is so, then from those others—or else from their own associates, as
some of them do when they grow arrogant and puffed up, or from others like
them. But human teachers who speak about God are not trustworthy simply because
they are human; for a human being is not sufficiently credible, being human, to
speak about God, the uncreated, the incorruptible, and the work of the Maker.
Then, if one is unable to speak adequately about him, should one therefore
trust even less what is said about God? For just as far as human beings fall
short of the power of God, so far does their speech fail, even if they speak
not of God himself but about God and about the divine Word. Human speech is
weak by nature and incapable of expressing God—not his name, for that is a
common usage among philosophers and poets alike, nor his essence, which is
impossible—but his power and his works. And indeed those who bear the title
“divine teacher” are directed by God alone in thought, with grace helping them
toward all knowledge; and they train themselves to contemplate the Holy Spirit
with the Holy Spirit, for “the Spirit searches the depths of God.” The natural
man does not receive the things of the Spirit. Therefore the wisdom among us is
the only wisdom taught by God, from which all the springs of wisdom depend, so
far as they aim at truth. Consider, too, how, since the Lord came among human
beings and taught us, there were myriads of heralds, announcers, arrangers, and
forerunners—foretelling from above, from the foundation of the world, by deeds
and by words, that he would come, where, how, and what the signs would be. The
Law and the Prophets had already foretold it. Then the forerunner points out
the One who is present; and after him the heralds of the manifestation proclaim
its power, announcing it not only to some but to all. Plato had Socrates as his
own teacher, Xenocrates had Plato, Aristotle had Theophrastus, and Zeno had
Cleanthes; these instructed only their own adherents. But the word of our
Teacher did not remain in Judea alone, as philosophy did in Greece; it spread
through the whole inhabited world, persuading Greeks and barbarians alike, in
every nation and region, in every city, in every household, and in each
individual within the provinces, and already moving not a few even of the
philosophers themselves to the truth. And while the Greek philosophy can be
blocked by any ruler who happens to interfere, our teaching is opposed from the
very first proclamation by kings and tyrants, by local rulers and governors,
with all their mercenaries, and by countless ordinary people, who are marshaled
against us and try in every way to cut it down; yet it flourishes even more.
For it does not die like a merely human teaching, nor fade like a weak gift; no
weak thing is a gift of God. It remains unimpeded, having been persecuted even
to the end. Plato also writes concerning poetry, “A certain thing is a cosmos
and a sacred maker,” and “I do not know who, before he becomes inspired and out
of his mind.” Democritus likewise says, “Whatever a poet writes with enthusiasm
and a holy spirit is beautiful.” We know what poets say. But who would not be
astonished at the prophets of God Almighty, who became instruments of a divine
voice? So, just as in fashioning the Gnostic I have shown his stature and the
beauty of his character, as it were in outline, I have indicated what he is
like; for what he will be in the contemplation of natural things will be made
clear afterward, when we begin to discuss the genesis of the world.
A. Andrew Das on 1 Thessalonians 2:13 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15
1 Thess 2:13:
The new paragraph in v. 13 begins
with another thanksgiving to God. On “the word you heard,” see Rom 10:17. The
Thessalonians received the preached word as it really was, the word of God.
Historically, many have recognized this verse to be claiming the direct inspiration
of Paul’s words. Elsewhere, Paul explains that God’s word creates faith (Rom
10:14-18); thus v. 13 hwere closes with the Thessalonians’ belief. Augustine
rightly attributed the Thessalonians faith to God’s gift-giving and empowering
word. The Lord enables their love to increase and abound. (A. Andrew Das, 1
and 2 Thessalonians [The Contextual Critical Commentary; Eugene, Oreg.:
Cascade Books, 2026], 52-53)
2 Thess 2:15:
Passing on tradition, whether by apostolic
letter or month, recalls also 1 Thess 4:1. Similar to Rom 16:17 and Gal 1:8,
the Thessalonians are to maintain the traditions they were taught by Paul,
even as philosophers handed down to students their teachings. The second-century
Clement of Alexandria emphasized the divine origin of these traditions, since
humans are otherwise incapable of uttering anything true about God (Stom.
6.18 [ANF 2:519]). (A. Andrew Das, 1 and 2 Thessalonians [The
Contextual Critical Commentary; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2026], 140)
Joseph A. Fitzmyer on the Egyptian Background to Luke 16:19-31
Years ago H. Gressmann (“Vom reichen Mann”) drew attention to an
Egyptian folktale, copied in Demotic on the back of a Greek document dated in
the seventh year of the emperor Claudius (a.d. 47), telling about the
retribution in the afterlife for conditions in this: a reincarnated Egyptian
Si-Osiris, born miraculously to Satme Khamuas, takes his father on a tour of Amente,
the realm of the dead, to show him what happened to a rich man who had died,
was honorably lamented, shrouded in fine linen, and sumptuously buried, and to
a poor man who had also died, but who was carried out unmourned on a straw mat
to a common necropolis of Memphis. The rich man was seen in torment with the
axle of the hinge of the hall’s door fixed in his right eye socket; but in
another hall Osiris, ruler of Amente, sat enthroned and near him was
the poor man, robed in the rich man’s fine linen. Si-Osiris’ words to his
father: “May it be done to you in Amente as it is done in Amente
to this pauper and not as it is done to this rich man in Amente.”
(See further F. L. Griffith, Stories of
the High Priests of Memphis [Oxford: Clarendon, 1900] 42–43.)
Gressmann then cited Luke 16:19–31 and seven other tales about
retribution in the afterlife from rabbinic sources of later date, the earliest
of which is found in two forms in the Palestinian Talmud (y. Sanh. 6.23c and y. Hag.
2.77d—scarcely before a.d. 400). Gressmann thought that Alexandrian Jews had
brought the Egyptian folktale to Palestine, where it developed as the story of
a poor Torah scholar and a rich toll-collector named Bar Maʿyan (see Note on
14:15). J. Jeremias (Parables, 183)
claims that Jesus was familiar with this Palestinian tale and even alluded to
it in the parable of the great dinner (14:15–24). That the story existed in
Palestine in the time of Jesus is possible; indeed, K. Grobel (“ ‘… Whose
Name was Neves’ ”) has exploited the Egyptian tale even more than
Gressmann did, pointing out further parallels (not all of which are
convincing). But there are distinctive elements in the first part of the story
that are present neither in the Egyptian folktale nor in the story of Bar
Maʿyan (the dogs, Abraham’s bosom, the dialogue between the rich man and
Abraham). If the Lucan parable echoes such folktales, it has refashioned
them, and there is no reason to think that this refashioning was not done by
Jesus himself. (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to
Luke X-XXIV: Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AYB 28A; New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2008], 1126-27, emphasis in bold added)
Robert Sungenis on the Lack of Clarity as to the Number of Biblical Verses Roman Catholicism Has Dogmatized the Interpretation Thereof
Well, there’s a debate about what
the church has actually dogmatized as far as scripture verses are concerned
because the church also dogmatizes theological principles that you know, you
can’t find in black and white in some scriptures, you see, like the doctrine of
the Assumption, for example, and there’s no scripture that says that Mary was
assumed into heaven, so you get that, and some people say well the church has
only dogmatized seven scriptures; other say thirty three; others say a hundred,
you know, the problem is the church has never told us what scriptures they dogmatized;
they’ve only cited the scriptures that they’ve used, so that question is really
unanswerable until the church gives us a list just like they were going to make
a list of the Traditions they never did that either and they will never will;
they’re too smart for that (Robert Sungenis, “A Primer on Defeating Sola Scriptura
- The Single Best Argument” beginning at the 33:29 mark)
Robert Alter on Isaiah 1:11
Why need I all your
sacrifices? This is not a pitch for the abolition of sacrifice but rather
an argument against a mechanistic notion of sacrifice, against the idea that
sacrifice can put man in good standing with God regardless of human behavior.
The point becomes entirely clear at the end of verse 15, when the prophet says
that it is hands stained with blood stretched out in payer that are utterly
abhorrent to God. Thus, the grain offering is “false” (or “futile”) because it
is brought by people who have oppressed the poor and failed to defend widows
and orphans. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 2019], 2:623)
Robert Alter on Song of Solomon 8:5
she who bore you. The
vocalization of the Masoretic Text indicates a verb, “she bore you”
(yeladetkha), but the conventions of parallelism would lead us to expect a
poetic substitution for the noun “mother” in the preceding verset (thus the
translation supposes yoladetkha), and this is in fact the vocalization
reflected in the Septuagint and in one version of the Syriac. (Robert Alter, The
Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:614; cf.
the
difference between MT Psa 110:3 and LXX Psa 109:3)
Robert Alter on Song of Solomon 5:16
His mouth is sweetest drink.
The reversion to the mouth does not really violate the vertical movement of the
poem downward because it is a kind of summary at the end: the beloved, having
canvassed her lover’s beauty from head to foot, returns to the physical site of
those kisses that epitomize physical intimacy with him and give her such
gratification. Mamtaqim, “sweetest drink” (which in modern Hebrew means
“candy”), is in biblical usage something sweet that is drunk, as its appearance
in Nehemiah 8:10 makes clear. This links the phrase with the beginning of the
first poem of the Song, in which the lover’s kisses are better than wine: the
first thing she says about her lover in the whole sequence of poems is also
what she says about him, summarizing what she feels, at the end of this poem. (Robert
Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company,
2019], 3:605)
Saturday, May 2, 2026
Mary Jane Woodger on the "Salvation" of All Animals
Commenting on D&C 77:
Because of the Atonement, all
animals will be heirs of salvation in their own spheres. The spirits of animals
are eternal and in the likeness of their bodies. (Mary Jane Woodger, The Essential Doctrine and Covenants Companion:
Key Insights to your Gospel Study [American Fork, Utah: Covenant
Communications, Inc., 2012], 152)
Further Reading:
B. H. Roberts Foundation, Teachings on
Animal Spirits (cf. Primary
Sources)
Notes on Sanhedrin 7:9 from the Jerusalem Talmud
I recently encountered the claim that Sanhedrin 7:9 in the Jerusalem Talmud teaches non-pagans were kissing/venerating icons/idols, and that this is a polemic against the common early Christian veneration of images. Such is used to support the Second Council of Nicea (and, for Catholics, the twentieth-fifth session of the Council of Trent). However, the text and its interpreters do not seem to support this being a description of Christian practices. What follows is (1) the text of the tractate and (2) commentaries thereon:
The Text of Sanhedrin 7:9 from the Jerusalem Talmud:
משנה: הָעוֹבֵד
עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֶחָד הָעוֹבֵד וְאֶחָד הַזּוֹבֵחַ וְאֶחָד הַמְקַטֵּר וְאֶחָד
הַמְנַסֵּךְ וְאֶחָד הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְהַמְקַבְּלוֹ עָלָיו לֶאֱלוֹהַּ
וְהָאוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵלִי אַתָּה. אֲבָל הַמְגַפֵּף וְהַמְנַשֵּׁק וְהַמְכַבֵּד
וְהַמַּרְבִּיץ הַמַּרְחִיץ הַסָּךְ הַמַּלְבִּישׁ וְהַמַּנְעִיל עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא
תַעֲשֶׂה. הַנּוֹדֵר בִּשְׁמוֹ וְהַמְקַיֵּם בִּשְׁמוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
הַפּוֹעֵר עַצְמוֹ לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר זוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָתוֹ. הַזּוֹרֵק אֶבֶן
לְמַרְקוּלִיס זוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָתוֹ:
MISHNAH: The worshipper of
strange worship whether he worships, or sacrifices, or burns incense, or makes
a libation, or prostrates himself; also one who accepts it as a god and says to
it: you are my god.
But one who embraces, or kisses,
or sweeps clean, or sprinkles water; one who washes, rubs with oil, clothes, or
puts shoes on it, violates a prohibition. He who makes a vow in its name or
keeps one in its name violates a prohibition. One who defecates in front of Baal
Pe`or follows its worship. One who throws a stone at a statue of Mercury
follows its worship.
הלכה: הָעוֹבֵד
עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כול׳. אַזְהָרָה לָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מְנַיִין. לֹא תָעָבְדֵם.
כָּרֵת מְנַיִין. אֶתִ יְי הוּא מְגַדֵּף וְנִכְרְתָה. וְלֹא מְגַדְּף כָּתוּב.
כְּאָדָם שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לַחֲבֶירוֹ. גִּידַּפְתָּה אֶת כָּל הַקְּעָרָה וְלֹא
שִׁיַירְתָּה בָהּ כְּלוּם. מָשָׁל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָעְזָר אוֹמֵר.
לִשְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין וּקְעָרָה שֶׁלְגְּרִיסִין בֵּינֵיהוֹן. פָּשַׁט
אֶחָד אַת יָדָו וְגִידֵּף אֶת כָּל הַקְּעָרָה וְלֹא שִׁיֵיר בָהּ כְּלוּם. כָּךְ
הַמְגַדֵּף וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֵינוֹ מְשַׁיֵיר לְאַחֲרָיו מִצְוָה.
עוֹנֶשׁ מְנַיִין. וְהוֹצֵאתָ הָאִישׁ הַהוּא אוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַהִיא אֲשֶׁר
עָשׂוּ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֶל שְׁעָרֶיךָ וגו׳ עַד וּסְקַלְתֶּם אוֹתָם
בָּאֲבָנִים וָמֵתוּ.
HALAKHAH: “The worshipper
of strange worship,” etc. From where warning about strange worship? Do not
worship them. Extirpation from where? He blasphemed the Eternal and will
be extirpated. But is there not written “blasphemed”? As one would say to
another, you scraped out the entire pot and did not leave anything; a parable
which Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar formulated: Two people were sitting with a pot
of porridge between them. One of them stretched out his hand, scraped out the
entire pot, and did not leave anything in it. So both the blasphemer and the
worshipper of strange worship do not leave any commandment as residue. From
where the punishment? You shall lead out that man, or that woman, who did
this deed to your gates, etc., up to and stone them with stones until
they die.
לֹא תָעָבְדֵם. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁיַּעֲבוֹד כָּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה
שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהֶם. הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה
בִּכְלָל הָיְתָה וְלָמָּה יָצָאת. לְהַקִּישׁ אֵלֶיהָ. אֶלָּא מַה
הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה מְיוּחֶדֶת מַעֲשֶׂה יָחִיד וְחַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ בִפְנֵי
עַצְמָהּ. אַף אֲנִי אַרְבֶּה כָּל מַעֲשֶׂה וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ חַיָיבִין
עָלָיו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָעְזָר אָמַר.
זִיבֵּחַ וְקִיטֵּר וְנִיסַּךְ בְּהֶעֱלֶם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. מוֹדֶה
שֶׁאִם עָבְדָהּ בַּעֲבוֹדָתָהּ בַּעֲבוֹדַת הָגָּבוֹהַּ בַּעֲבוֹדַת
הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב עַל כַּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. כְּדָמַר רִבִּי
שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי
זְעִירָא. וְלֹא יִזְבְּחוּ עוֹד אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם לַשְּׂעִירִים. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ.
מַטִּי תָּנָהּ לַקָּדָשִׁים.
Do not worship them.
Should I say, not unless he worshipped every single strange worship in the
world? The verse says, do not prostrate yourself before them.
Prostration was included; why is it mentioned separately? To tie to it:
Prostration is special in that it is the act of a single person and is
punishable separately, so I am adding any single act that one is liable for
separately. Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if one sacrificed, and
burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable only for
one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is
identical with the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each
single action. As Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: They should
not continue to offer their sacrifices to spirits. They said to him, turn
and refer it to sacrifices.
רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זִיבֵּחַ לָהּ טָלֶה בַעַל מוּם חַיָיב.
מַאי כְדוֹן. כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן לַיי אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.
כָּל לַיי אֱלֹהֵיכֶם לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן.
Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi
Joḥanan: If he sacrificed a defective lamb to it, he is guilty. From where
this? As Rebbi Hila said, do not do such to the Eternal, your God.
Anything that you might do for the Eternal, your God, you may not do in this
case.
רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָה. לֹא תָעָבְדֵם
כְּלָל. לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לֶהֶם פְּרָט. כִּי לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְאֵל אַחֵר
חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט.
רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כָּהֲנָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי הִילָא. לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן
כְּלָל. זוֹבֵחַ לָאֱלֹהִים יָחֳרָם פְּרָט. בִּלְתִּי לַיי לְבַדּוֹ. חָזַר
וָכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל וְהַכֹּל בִּכְלָל. וְרִיבָה אֶת הַמְגַפֵּף
וְהַמְנַשֵּׁק. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֶמְרָה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. לֹא
לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה. הַמְגַפֵּף וְהַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה שֶׁאֵינָן
מַעֲשֶׂה.
Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before
Rebbi Zeˋira: Do not worship them, a principle. Do not prostrate
yourself before them, a detail. For you shall not prostrate yourself
before another god; He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and
principle: is nothing covered but the detail? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked
before Rebbi Hila: Do not do such, a principle. One who sacrifices to
gods shall be banned, a detail. Only for the Eternal alone, He again
stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle; is not everything
included? Does it not add one who embraces and one who kisses? He told him, why
is prostrating mentioned? Not to infer from it that it is an action? He who
embraces and he who (prostrates himself) do not exemplify actions.
מְנַיִין לָאוֹמֵר לוֹ. אֵלִי אַתָּה. רַב אָבוּן בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין
דְּתַמָּן. וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לוֹ וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ
יִשְׂרָאֵל וגו׳. מֵעַתָּה אֵינוֹ מִתְחַיֵיב עַד שֶׁיִּזְבַּח וִיקַטֵּר
וָיֹאמַר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא בָא הַכָּתוּב לְהַזְכִּיר אֶלָּא גְּנָיָין
שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לוֹ לֹא לַגָּבוֹהַּ. וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לוֹ לֹא
לַגָּבוֹהַּ. וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ. לֹא לַגָּבוֹהַּ. מַאי כְדוֹן. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן
אֲמִירָה וְנֶאֶמְרָה אֲמִירָה בַּמֵּסִית. מָה אֲמִירָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַמֵּסִית
עָשָׂה בָהּ אֲמִירָה כְמַעֲשֶׂה. אַף אֲמִירָה הָאֲמוּרָה כָאן נַעֲשֶׂה בָהּ
אֲמִירָה כְמַעֲשֶׂה.
From where about him who says,
“you are my god”? Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: They prostrated
themselves before it, and sacrificed to it, and said, these are your gods,
Israel. Then he should not be guilty unless he sacrifice, burn incense, and
declare. Rebbi Yose said, the verse is written only for the disgrace of Israel.
They prostrated themselves before it, not before Heaven. And
sacrificed to it, not to Heaven. And said, not to Heaven. What about
this? Saying is mentioned here and saying is said about one who
leads astray. Since for saying mentioned about one who leads astray,
saying is equated with acting, also for the saying mentioned here, we
have to equate saying with acting.
כָּתוּב וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיַּעֲבֹד אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לָהֶם
וְלַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אוֹ לַיָּרֵחַ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. לַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אֵין כָּתוּב
כָּאן אֶלָּא וְלַשֶּׁמֶשׁ. אֵין כָּאן כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֶלָּא רִיבּוּיִים. הָתִיב
רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זְמִינָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. וְהָא כָתוּב כֹּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת
וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת. מֵעַתָּה אֵין כָּאן כְּלָל
וּפְרָט אֶלָּא רִיבּוּיִים. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּכָתַב וָי״ו. אָמַר רַב יוֹחָנָן
בַּר מַרְיָיא. כָּל הֵן דַּאֲנָא מַשְׁכַּח וָי״ו אֲנָא מְחִיק לֵיהּ. אָמַר
רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבוּדֵּמָא. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. מַה שֶׁבַּיָּמִים יְהוּ
אֲסוּרִין וּמַה שֶׁבַּגִּיגִּיּוֹת וְשֶׁבַּבֵיבָרִים יְהוּ מוּתָּרִין.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכָל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם. רִיבָה.
It is written: He went and
worshipped other powers and prostrated himself before them, and to the sun, and
to the moon. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is not said to the sun but and
to the sun. That is not principle and detail but addition. Rebbi Abba bar
Zemina objected before Rebbi Ze`ura; is it not written any which have fins
and scales, and any which do not have fins and scales? Then this is not
principle and detail but additions since there is written and? Rebbi Joḥanan
bar Marius said, anywhere I am encountering and, I am deleting it. Rebbi
Samuel ben Eudaimon said, I would have said that anything in the oceans is
forbidden, what is in barrels and vivaria should be permitted. The verse says, and
anything which lives in water, an addition.
רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. הָאוֹמֵר לוֹ.
אֵלִי אַתָּה. מַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי וַחֲכָמִים. הִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהּ מָהוּ. רִבִּי
יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בִּכְפִיפַת קוֹמָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. מַה
בֵין הַמַּעֲלֶה וְהַמּוֹרִיד קוֹמָתוֹ מַה בֵין הַמַּעֲלֶה וְהַמּוֹרִיד
שִׂפְתוֹתָיו. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כַּמַּחֲלוֹקֶת. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר.
כַּמַּחֲלוֹקֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. קִרְיָיא מְסַיֵיעַ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ.
תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם לָעוֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁגָגָה. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דָבָר
שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה. הַמְגַדֵּף וְהַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה שֶׁאֵינָן מַעֲשֶׂה מְנַיִין.
Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the
name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If one says to it, you are my god, there is disagreement
between Rebbi and the Sages. If he (prostrated himself), what is the rule?
Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that if he lowered his body, he is guilty.
What is the difference between raising and lowering his body, and raising and
lowering his lips? Rebbi Joḥanan said, following disagreement. Rebbi Simeon ben
Laqish said, following the distinction. Rebbi Zeˋira said, a verse supports
Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One rule should be for you, for the one acting in
error. This only refers to what represents an action. The one who embraces
(and who prostrates himself), which are not action, from where? (source)
Korban HaEdah on
Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:
Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:1
מתני' אחד העובד עכו"ם. בדבר שדרך
עבודתה בכך:
“Mishnah: One who worships idolatry (avodah zarah)—[he
is liable] in a manner that is its customary way of being worshipped.”
Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:2
ואחד הזובח כו'. העובד העכו"ם באחת
מארבע עבודת הללו חייב אפילו אין דרך עבודתה בהן וכל שאר עבודות חוץ מאלו אינו חייב
עד שיעבוד כדרך עבודתה:
“And likewise, one who sacrifices, etc.: one who
worships idolatry (avodah zarah) through any one of these four forms of worship
is liable, even if it is not the customary manner of its worship. But with
regard to all other forms of worship besides these, one is not liable unless he
worships in the manner that is its customary way of being worshipped.”
Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:3
והמקבלו עליו לאלוה. ואפילו באמירה בעלמא
דאיתקש לזביחה דכתיב ויזבחו לו ויאמרו אלה אלהיך:
“And one who accepts it upon himself as a god—even by
mere speech—is liable, for this is compared to sacrifice, as it is written:
‘They sacrificed to it and said: These are your gods.’”
Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:4
והאומר לו אלי אתה. בפניו ואתא סיפא לגלויי
רישא דאי תנא רישא ה"א ה"מ בפניו אבל שלא בפניו לא תנא סיפא בפניו מכלל דרישא
שלא בפניו ואפי' הכי חייב:
“And one who says to it, ‘You are my god’—[this refers
to saying it] in its presence. The latter clause comes to clarify the first:
for if it had taught only the first clause, I would have said that this applies
specifically when said in its presence, but if not in its presence, no.
Therefore it teaches in the latter clause ‘in its presence,’ from which it
follows that the first clause refers to [even] not in its presence—and even so,
he is liable.”
Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:5
אבל המגפף כו'. שלא כדרכה:
“But one who embraces [it], etc.—[this refers to doing
so] not in its customary manner [of worship].”
Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:6
המגפף.. מחבק:
“Ha-megapef — [that is:] one who embraces (meḥabek).”
Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:7
עובד בל"ת. דלא מיחייב מיתה שלא כדרכה
אלא בהנהו דפרט בהו קרא:
“He transgresses a negative commandment (lo ta‘aseh),
for one is not liable to the death penalty for [idolatrous worship] performed
not in its customary manner, except in those [acts] that Scripture explicitly
specifies.”
Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:8
הנודר בשמו. קונם עלי כל פירות שבעולם
בשם ע"א פלונית אם ארחץ:
“One who vows in its name—[for example:] ‘Konam (a vow)
upon me are all the fruits of the world, in the name of such-and-such an idol,
if I bathe.’”
Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:9
המקיים. נשבע בשמו:
“Ha-mekayyem—[this means:] one who swears in its name.”
Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:10
עובר בלא תעשה. ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו:
“He transgresses a negative commandment—[as it is
written:] ‘And the name of other gods you shall not mention.’”
Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:11
הפוער עצמו. מתריז רעי בפניו:
“One who ‘opens himself’—[that is:] he excretes before
it.”
Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:12
זו היא עבודתו. ואפילו נתכוון לבזותו חייב
עליו מיתה:
“This is its [i.e., the idol’s] mode of worship; and
even if he intended to demean it, he is liable to the death penalty on its
account.”
Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:13
והזורק אבן למרקוליס. שמצדדים שלשה אבנים
אחת מכאן ואחת מכאן ואחת מלמעלה על גביהן וקורים אותה ישראלים מרקוליס שהוא חילוף השבח
אבל העובדים אותה קורין אוחה קוליס שהוא לשון שבח ועובדין אותה בזריקת אבנים:
“And one who throws a stone at Marculis—[this refers to
the idol] for which they place three stones, one on this side and one on that
side, and one above them on top of the two, and the Israelites call it
Marculis, which is a corruption of the word of praise; but those who worship it
call it Markulis, which is a term of praise, and they worship it by throwing
stones.”
Ohr LaYesharim on
Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:
Ohr LaYesharim on Jerusalem
Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1
משנה
העובד עבודה זרה
– שנשנה בהלכה ד שדינו בסקילה,
- אחד העובד – בין שהוא עובד את האליל בדבר שדרך עבודתו בכך, ואחד המזבח, ואחד המקטר, ואחד המנסך, ואחד המשתחוה
– בין שהוא זובח קורבן לאליל, ובין
שהוא מקטר קטורת, ובין שהוא מנסך יין, ובין שהוא משתחווה לאליל, אפילו אין דרך
עבודת האליל בכך, והמקבלו עליו לאלוה – שמקבל עליו את האליל שיהא לו אלוהות,
והאומר לו: אלי אתה
– לשון המקרא: "לְפִסְלוֹ
יִסְגָּד לוֹ וְיִשְׁתַּחוּ וְיִתְפַּלֵּל אֵלָיו וְיֹאמַר: הַצִּילֵנִי כִּי
אֵלִי אָתָּה" (ישעיהו מד,יז).
אבל המגפף
– המחבק את פסל האליל,
והמנשק והמכבד
– המטאטא לפניו,
והמחבק
(מילה זו ישנה בשני כתבי יד של
המשנה, אך אינה בכתב יד אחר של המשנה. אין לגרוס 'והמחבק', ונראה שנכתב תחילה על
הגיליון כפירוש ל'המגפף' ואחר כך נכנס לתוך נוסח המשנה בין 'המכבד' ו'המרבץ' שבאים
בכל מקום יחד) והמרבץ – המזלף מים לפניו, המרחיץ, הסך, המלביש והמנעיל - עובר בלא תעשה
– שנאמר: "ולא תעבדם"
(שמות כ,ה). הנודר בשמו והמקיים – הנשבע בשמו - עובר בלא תעשה – שנאמר: "ושם אלוהים אחרים לא תזכירו" (שמות
כג,יג). הפוער עצמו לבעל פעור – המגלה את עצמו, שעומד ערום לפניו ועושה צרכיו בפניו, אף על
פי שדרך ביזיון הוא, - זו היא עבודתו – וחייב סקילה. והזורק אבן במרקוליס – באליל מרקוריוס, -
זו היא עבודתו
– שהיו מעמידים את
פסלו בצידי הדרכים על עמוד של אבן ומצידו מצבה, לפי שהיה נחשב למגן הדרכים והמסחר,
ומי שהיה עובר על יד הפסל היה נותן אבן על המצבה.
Mishnah
“One who worships an idol” — this is repeated here in
the halakhah because its ruling is stoning. “One who worships” — whether he
serves the idol in the manner that is its customary form of worship, or one who
sacrifices, one who burns incense, one who pours a libation, or one who bows
down — whether he sacrifices an offering to the idol, or burns incense, or
pours wine, or bows to the idol, even if that is not the idol’s customary mode
of worship; “and one who accepts it upon himself as a god” — that is, one who
accepts the idol as a deity for himself; “and one who says to it, ‘You are my
god’” — the language of Scripture: “he falls down before it, bows to it, prays
to it, and says, ‘Save me, for you are my god’” (Isaiah 44:17).
“But one who embraces it,” meaning one who embraces the
idol’s image, “and one who kisses it, and one who honors it” — sweeping before
it, “and one who hugs it” — this word appears in two manuscripts of the
Mishnah, but not in another manuscript of the Mishnah. It should not be read as
“and one who hugs it”; rather, it seems it was first written in the margin as
an explanation of “one who embraces it,” and later entered into the Mishnah
text between “one who honors it” and “one who sprinkles” — which always appear
together — “and one who sprinkles” — sprinkling water before it, washing it,
anointing it, clothing it, and putting shoes on it — transgresses a negative
commandment, as it is said: “You shall not worship them” (Exodus 20:5).
“One who vows by its name” and “one who fulfills [such
a vow]” — meaning one who swears by its name — transgresses a negative
commandment, as it is said: “And the name of other gods you shall not mention”
(Exodus 23:13).
“One who exposes himself to Baal Peor” — that is, one
who uncovers himself, stands naked before it, and relieves himself before it,
even though this is an act of disgrace — this is its mode of worship, and he is
liable to stoning.
“And one who throws a stone at Merculis” — that is, the
idol of Mercurius — this is its mode of worship: they would set up its image by
the roadside on a stone pillar, with a heap of stones beside it, because it was
regarded as a protector of travelers and commerce, and anyone passing by the
idol would add a stone to the heap.
Penei Moshe on
Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:
Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:1
מתני' אחד העובד. עכו"ם בדבר שעבודתה
בכך:
“Mishnah: One who worships.” [This refers to] idolatry, in the
manner that is its customary form of worship.
Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:2
וא' המזבח וכו'. באלו ד' עבודות חייב באחד
מהן אע"פ שאין דרך עבודתה בכך וכל שאר עבודות אינו חייב עד שיעבוד בדרך עבודתה:
“And one who sacrifices, etc.” With these four forms of worship,
one is liable for any one of them, even if that is not the idol’s customary
mode of worship; but for all other forms of worship, one is not liable unless
he serves it in its customary way.
Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:3
והמקבל עליו לאלוה. אפילו באמירה בעלמא
חייב דאתקש לזביחה דכתיב ויזבחו לו ויאמרו אלה אלהיך:
“And one who accepts it upon himself as a god.” Even by mere speech he is liable,
because it is compared to sacrificing, as it is written: “And they sacrificed
to it and said, These are your gods.”
Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:4
והאומר לו אלי אתה. בפניו ותנא סיפא לגלויי
רישא דאי תני רישא הוי אמינא דוקא בפניו אבל שלא בפניו לא תנא סיפא בפניו מכלל דרישא
שלא בפניו ואפילו הכי חייב:
“And one who says to it, ‘You are my god.’” This means in its presence. And
the latter clause comes to clarify the first: if the first clause alone had
been taught, I would have said that this applies only in its presence, but not
when not in its presence; therefore the latter clause teaches “in its
presence,” from which it follows that the first clause refers to [even] not in
its presence, and nevertheless he is liable.
Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:5
אבל המגפף. מחבק:
“But one who embraces it.” [That is,] one who hugs it.
Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:6
והמכבד והמרבץ. לפניה:
“And one who honors it and one who sweeps before it.” [These acts are done] before it.
Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:7
עובר בל"ת. דלא תעבדם יתירה כתיב
ודברים אלו בכלל עבודה הן ואעפ"כ אינו לוקה על אחת מהן לפי שאינן בפירוש:
“He transgresses a negative commandment.” The phrase “You shall not worship
them” contains an extra term, and these acts are included in the category of
worship; nevertheless, one does not receive lashes for any one of them, since
they are not explicitly stated.
Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:8
הנודר בשמו. קונם עלי דבר זה בשם ע"ז
פלוני:
“One who vows by its name.” [For example:] “This thing is
forbidden to me as konam by the name of such-and-such an idol.”
Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:9
והמקיים בשמו. שבועה נשבע תרגומו מקיים:
“And one who fulfills [a vow] by its name.” “To swear” is translated [in
Aramaic] as “to fulfill.”
Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:10
עובר בל"ת. ושם אלהים אחרי' לא תזכירו
ולוקה על לאו זה. הפוער עצמו. מתריז ריע לפניו:
“He transgresses a negative commandment.” [This is from] “And the name of
other gods you shall not mention,” and he is liable to lashes for this
prohibition.
“One who exposes himself.” [That is,] he defecates in front of it.
Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:11
זו היא עבודתו. וחייב עליה מיתה ואם נתכוין
לבזותו חייב עליה חטאת מפני שמוטעה הוא והרי עבודתה בכך:
“This is its mode of worship.” He is liable to death for it; and
if he intended to demean it, he is liable for a sin-offering, because he is
mistaken, since this is its mode of worship.
Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud
Sanhedrin 7:9:1:12
הזורק אבן למרקוליס. שעובדין אותו בזריקת
אבנים וכן המסלק אבן מלפניו ג"כ דרך עבודתו בכך וחייב ואם נתכוין לרוגמו חייב
חטאת. מר קוליס. תילוף השבח. מר לשון חילוף הוא כמו במר דשחוטה במר דכנתא. קילוס שבח:
“One who throws a stone at Merculis.” It is worshiped by throwing
stones. Likewise, one who removes a stone from before it [also acts] in its
mode of worship, and is liable. And if he intended to stone it, he is liable
for a sin-offering.
“Mar Kolis.” A corruption of praise. “Mar” means reversal, as in
“mar de-shḥitah” and “mar de-khanta.” “Kilis” means praise.
Sheyarei Korban on
Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:
Sheyarei Korban on Jerusalem
Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:1
ואחד הזובח. עי' בקונט'. בבבלי פריך וליחשוב נמי זורק (פירש"י כי היכי דאשכחן
בעכו"ם זביחה קיטור וניסוך דכתיב ויזבחי לו אשר חלב זבחימו יאכלו ישתו יין
נסיכם מצינו נמי זריקה בל אסיך נסכיהם מדם) אמר אביי זורק היינו מנסך דכתיב בל
אסיך נסכיהם מדם. וקשה ל"ל לאביי לאתויי קרא בל אסיך כו' הא עיקר קושית המקשה
היא מהך קרא לפירש"י. וע"ק לפירושו קושית תו' בד"ה וליחשוב כו'
ע"ש. וע"ק מנ"ל שאינו חייב על כל עבודת פנים כגון המקבל והמוליך
ואי משום דלא אשכחן הכי בקרא שהן עבודות לעכו"ם כמ"ש רש"י וכי
בשביל כך נפטרנו וכ"ש דקשה לרש"י ותו' שמביאין מקראות מדברי קבלה הנוכל
לומר דכוונת התורה לדברי הקבלה והא דכתוב שם זביחה והקטרה לא נכתב שם לכוונה זו
דניליף מיניה איסורא והיתירא. לכך נראה הא דקאמר המזבח והמקטר והמנסך חייב יליף
מדאסרינהו רחמנא לעשותן בחוץ וכתיב בשחוטי חוץ ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם לשעירים
ש"מ כל הנך דאסיר בחוץ הם עבודות לעכו"ם ולכך פריך וליחשוב נמי הזורק
דמפורש איסורו בקרא וזרק הכהן את הדם וגו' ומשני כלל התנא איסור זריקה בכלל הניסוך
דמצינו שגם בלשון המקרא זריקה קרוי ניסוך דכתיב בל אסיך נסכיהם מדם. והיינו טעמא
דלא תנן המקבל והמוליך שאין חייב עליהן בחוץ. ודלא כרש"י והכ"מ פ"נ
ע"ש:
“And likewise one who sacrifices.” See the commentary (kuntres).
In the Bavli it asks: why does it not also list one who sprinkles (the blood)?
(Rashi explains: just as we find with idolatry sacrificing, burning [incense],
and libation—since it is written, “They sacrificed to it… they ate the fat of
their sacrifices… they drank the wine of their libations”—so too we find
sprinkling, as it is written, “They shall not pour out their libations of
blood.”) Abaye said: “One who sprinkles is [included in] one who pours a
libation,” as it is written, “They shall not pour out their libations of
blood.”
But this is difficult: why does Abaye need to bring the
verse “They shall not pour out…”—after all, the main question of the one who
asked already comes from this very verse, according to Rashi. And there is a
further difficulty with his explanation from the question of Tosafot (s.v. ve-liḥshov,
see there).
Another difficulty: from where do we know that one is
not liable for all the inner Temple services, such as receiving [the blood] and
bringing [it to the altar]? And if you say it is because we do not find these
mentioned in Scripture as acts of idolatry, as Rashi writes—does that exempt
us? All the more so is this difficult for Rashi and Tosafot, who bring verses
from the Prophets: can we really say that the Torah’s intent depends on later
Scriptural writings? And those verses that mention sacrificing and burning were
not written for the purpose of deriving legal prohibitions and permissions from
them.
Therefore, it appears that when the Mishnah states that
one who sacrifices, burns incense, or pours a libation is liable, it derives
this from the fact that the Merciful One forbade performing these acts outside
[the Temple]. As it is written regarding slaughtering outside: “They shall no
longer sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat-demons.” From here we learn that
all those acts prohibited outside [the Temple] are [considered] acts of
idolatrous worship.
Accordingly, it asks: why not also list one who
sprinkles, since its prohibition is explicitly stated in the verse, “And the
priest shall sprinkle the blood…”? And it answers: the Tanna included the
prohibition of sprinkling within that of libation, since we find that even in
biblical language, sprinkling is called “libation,” as it is written, “They
shall not pour out their libations of blood.”
And this is also the reason why the Mishnah does not
teach [liability for] receiving and bringing [the blood], since one is not
liable for them outside [the Temple]. And this is not in accordance with Rashi
or the Kesef Mishneh (see there, ch. 9).
Sheyarei Korban on Jerusalem
Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:2
זו היא עבודתה. עי' בקונט'. והרמב"ם והר"ב פירשוה לענין חיוב חטאת. וכתב הכ"מ
דאלו במזיד ולסקילה א"א דהא מוטעה הוא. וכתב התי"ט ותימא על רש"י
שמפרש זהו עבודתו וחייב עליה מיתה וי"ל דעתו כיון שהתרו בו אע"פ שהוא
מוטעה וסובר כיון דמכוין לבזותו בין בהתראתן כלום אפ"ה חייב מיתה דהא התרו
ביה ע"כ. לפום ריהטא היה נראה לתרץ בזה קושית תו' דף ס"ה בד"ה
הואיל כו' וקשה לפירש"י השתחואה נמי ישנה בלב כדאמרינן גבי אנדרטא אי לא
קיבלה באלוה לאו כלום הוא ע"כ דהשתא חזינן בעכו"ם שאינה בלב דהא אפי'
מכוין לבזותו חייב. והא דקאמר באנדרטא ואי לא קיבלה באלוה לאו כלום הוא. איירי
בשוגג כמפורש שם ובשוגג ודאי פטור אם אין לבו לעבירה. אך קשה הא בעובד מאהבה
ומיראה אמר רבא דפטור אי קבליה באלוה אין אי לא לא. ופירש"י פטור בין במזיד
בין בשוגג דלאו כלום עביד. הרי דאפי' במזיד בעינן אף בעכו"ם קבלה בלב. וליכא למימר
הא דקאמר ברכת השם ישנה בלב כאביי ס"ל העובד מאהבה ומיראה חייב. דהא רבא הוא
דמשני הכי. ודוחק לומר דה"ק ר' יוחנן כאביי ס"ל. ועוד לרבא תיקשי מתני'
דקאמר זו היא עבודתו וחייב וא"נ אחיוב חטאת קאי קשה הא אפי' בעובד מאהבה
ומיראה פוטר רבא אפי' מחטאת כדמוכח בש"ס דף ס"א וכן פירש"י שם
כ"ש מכוין לבזויי ולא לעבדה שיש לפטרו טפי כמ"ש תו' דף ס"ד
בד"ה אע"ג. וממ"ש יתבאר לך שמ"ש המהרש"א שם ומיהו התו'
כו' ע"ש משמע דסברי תו' דחייב חטאת אפי' לא נתכוין לעבדה דברי תימא הם וקשיין
ליה דברי הש"ס דף ס"א וצ"ע. אך עיקר תמיהתו של התי"ט ליתא
שהרי כתב תו' דף ס"ד בד"ה אע"ג דמכוין לבזויה ולעובדו בביזוי דאי
לא קמיכווין אלא לבזות הא אפי' עובד מאהבה ומיראה פטור לרבא כו' ע"ש ונראה
שזו היא דעת הרמב"ם בחיבורו פ"ג מה' עכו"ם הפוער עצמו לפעור כדי
לבזותו והזורק אבן למרקוליס כדי לבזותו הואיל ועבודתו בכך חייב ומביא קרבן על
שגגתו ע"כ. האריך לומר ומביא קרבן כו' ללמד דחייב דתנן במתני' חיוב מיתה הוא
ולא חטאת. ולפי פי' הכ"מ הל"ל חייב חטאת על שגגתו ולפמ"ש ניחא
דסד"א כתיב לעושה בשגגה ומעשה זה לבזותו הוא יהא פטור קמ"ל דאפ"ה
חייב. ומ"ש בפירושו חייב חטאת לאו דוקא. ומעתה אין מקום לקושית הרמ"ך
פ"ג מה' עכו"ם ופ"ה מה' יסודי התורה ע"ש:
“This is its mode of worship.” See the commentary (kuntres).
Rambam and the Bartenura explain this with respect to liability for a
sin-offering (ḥatat). The Kesef Mishneh writes that this cannot
refer to liability for stoning in a case of intentional transgression, since he
is mistaken (mut‘eh).
The Tosafot Yom Tov writes: it is surprising
regarding Rashi, who explains “this is its mode of worship, and he is liable to
death.” One may answer that Rashi’s view is that since he was warned, even
though he is mistaken and thinks that since he intends to demean it the warning
is meaningless, nevertheless he is liable to death, for he was indeed warned.
At first glance, it would seem possible to resolve with
this the difficulty raised by Tosafot (Sanhedrin 65b, s.v. ho’il), who
ask: according to Rashi, bowing (hishtaḥavayah) should also be
considered an act “of the heart,” as we say regarding a statue (andarta):
if he did not accept it as a god, it is nothing. But now we see with idolatry
that it is not [dependent] on the heart, for even if he intends to demean it,
he is liable.
However, this is not difficult: when it says regarding
the statue, “if he did not accept it as a god, it is nothing,” that refers to
an unintentional case (shogeg), as explained there; and in a case of
error, he is certainly exempt if his heart is not directed toward the
transgression.
Yet there remains a difficulty: regarding one who
worships out of love or fear, Rava says he is exempt unless he accepts it as a
god; if he does not, he is not liable. Rashi explains that he is exempt both
intentionally and unintentionally, since he has done nothing. Thus, even in
intentional idolatry, acceptance in the heart is required.
One cannot answer that the statement that “blessing
[i.e., cursing] the Name is of the heart” follows Abaye, who holds that one who
worships out of love or fear is liable—for it is Rava who gives that answer.
And it is forced to say that Rabbi Yoḥanan follows Abaye.
Moreover, according to Rava, our Mishnah is difficult,
for it says “this is its mode of worship and he is liable.” Even if you say
this refers to liability for a sin-offering, it is still difficult, since Rava
exempts even from a sin-offering one who worships out of love or fear, as is
clear in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 61b), and so Rashi explains there. All the more
so, one who intends to demean rather than to worship should be even more
exempt, as Tosafot write (Sanhedrin 64b, s.v. af al gav).
From what I have written, you will understand that what
the Maharsha writes there—namely that Tosafot hold that one is liable for a
sin-offering even if he did not intend to worship—is astonishing, and it
conflicts with the Talmud (61b), and requires further investigation.
However, the main difficulty of the Tosafot Yom Tov
is not valid, for Tosafot themselves write (Sanhedrin 64b, s.v. af al gav)
that the case is where he intends both to demean it and to worship it through
that act of degradation; for if he intended only to demean it, then even one
who worships out of love or fear is exempt according to Rava.
And it appears that this is also the opinion of Rambam
in his Mishneh Torah (Hil. Avodah Zarah 3): one who exposes himself to
Peor in order to demean it, or one who throws a stone to Merculis in order to
demean it—since this is its mode of worship, he is liable, and he brings a
sacrifice for his inadvertent transgression.
Rambam lengthens his language—“and he brings a
sacrifice”—to teach that the liability stated in the Mishnah is for death, not
merely for a sin-offering. According to the Kesef Mishneh, he should
have said explicitly “liable for a sin-offering for his inadvertent act.” But
according to what I have written, it is clear: one might have thought that
since Scripture says “for one who performs [the act] inadvertently,” and here
his act is intended as degradation, he should be exempt; therefore it teaches
that even so, he is liable.
And when Rambam writes in his commentary “liable for a
sin-offering,” it is not precise. Accordingly, there is no longer any
difficulty from the objection of the RaMaḥ (see Hil. Avodah Zarah ch. 3 and
Hil. Yesodei ha-Torah ch. 5).
Further Reading:
Answering
Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)