Avodah Zarah 051

1:
Our mishnah is very simple. We have already seen that idols could be found all over the town and the countryside in the Graeco-Roman world – rather like statues are erected in western towns today. These idols were often associated with some kind of public facility. In AZ 040 we saw that a municipal bath-house could have its own idol as patron. Our present mishnah suggests that not only bath-houses were associated with idols but public gardens and parks as well.

2:
Our mishnah discusses whether a Jew may derive benefit from such a facility. Can he use the bath-house? Can she relax in the public garden? Can children play ball in the park?

3:
If the use of the facility is absolutely free then Jews may benefit from it; however, if some form of payment is involved which would benefit the idol or its acolytes then use of the facility is forbidden to Jews.

4:
If the ownership of the facility is vested in both the idol and some non-religious entity then the issue of benefit is a non-starter: the part-ownership of a lay person or persons indicates that no especial sanctity is attributed to the idol.

5:
In their commentaries on our mishnah both Rambam and Rabbi Ovadya of Bertinoro add information. Rambam explains that the issue of payment implies that a Jew may not benefit the idolatrous priests in any way. Rabbi Ovadya says that the benefit is specifically payment. However, other commentators say that this is not so and that any kind of benefit – monetary or otherwise – to the idol or its institutions is forbidden.

In AZ 048 in the discussion I pointed out that we cannot perform a mitzvah if the performance itself involves a sin. (I gave the example of praying from a stolen prayerbook.) Jacob Chinitz writes:

The discussion of Mitzva Habaa Baavera [a mitzvah which involves a sin] raises the question of Gedola Avera Lishma Mi Mitzva Shelo Lishma [it is better to sin for a good reason than otherwise]. If a mitzva cannot be fulfilled by using something gained through an Avera [sin], how can an Avera performed for a good purpose, but consisting in itself a forbidden element, but credited as worthy, even more worthy than a Mitzva done not for its own sake. If the means can be ignored in favor of the End, why should we not ignore the Means when the Mitzva is performed, even though the Means were gained through an Averah?

I respond:

Jacob's quote comes from the Gemara [Nazir 23b] and reads:

Jacob's explanation of the quote is inaccurate. (Actually, it is rather difficult to render the Hebrew into English.) The meaning is that it is better to sin if your purpose in sinning is a good one than to perform a mitzvah in a perfunctory manner. It is well known that "performance of a mitzvah requires deliberate purpose". Thus performing a mitzvah with no appropriate concentration is not really performing the mitzvah. On the other hand, if one's ultimate purpose in sinning is a positive one it may be worthy. The example that the Gemara gives is the story of Jael [Judges 5:24], the woman who murdered the Canaanite general Sisera in order to save the people of Israel.

In AZ 049 I invited participants to take up the challenge offered by Mike Nichols. Mike had asked what relevance he should in everyday life find for the subject of our present study. Mark Lautman responds:

I would like to draw the attention of the participants to the amusing incident that I described in AZ 005, the amusing incident with a religious Indian woman and the paper idols. Even if there is no practical use for the rules concerning idolatry which we are studying at present there is a value in studying the thought processes of the sages that appear in this tractate. This could help us discover practical rulings in this modern age. For example, if there was a group of sages who treated deriving benefit from idolatry with leniency then it might be possible to deduce that concerning the use of electricity on Shabbat or the use of computers that group would be lenient.

I comment:

Mark's 'example' is not apposite for many reasons that we cannot go into here. But his general thesis is right on the mark. When we studied tractate Sanhedrin we learned that "there never was and never will be a stubborn and rebellious son" [Sanhedrin 71a] – a topic which lasted throughout the whole of chapter 8! The obvious question presents itself: if the "stubborn and rebellious son" is a non-event, why is it mentioned at all in the Torah [Deuteronomy 18:18-21]? To which the Gemara responds: for the virtue of studying it and the benefits that accrue from that study. Furthermore, regarding an 'apostate township' [Sanhedrin 111b] the Tosefta [Sanhedrin 14:1] states that although "there never was and there never will be such a township" it is included in the Torah [Deuteronomy 13:13-18] in order to "derive [further] laws from it."

I have received more responses to Mike's query. I shall bring them in the next shiur. Also, comments are still coming in about Jewish worship in churches.

I have received a request to provide a forum for discussion on the topics studied in the Virtual Bet Midrash – an Internet presence where participants can discuss the material among themselves. If twenty people tell me that they would participate in such a forum I will do my best to bring it into existence.