AS SUMMER APPROACHES, I HAVE BEGUN TO CONSIDER WHETHER AND WHEN TO END THIS COURSE, AND WHAT COURSE(S) TO OFFER NEXT YEAR. AS PART OF THAT PROCESS, I WOULD APPRECIATE READERS INFORMING ME AS TO THEIR IMPRESSIONS OF THESE SHIURIM—HOW MANY OF YOU READ THEM CONSISTENTLY (EITHER WEEKLY OR CATCHING UP AT REGULAR INTERVALS). I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT.

THE POWER OF THREATS

Continuing the discussion of idolatry, Rambam notes that the heads of idolatrous sects managed to scare people into following their rules by claiming that ignoring them would lead to various calamities. For one example, he points to the practice of passing one's children through fire. Rambam assumes that the way this came about was that the priests of Molech announced that any child who was not passed through fire would die. Coincidentally, Rambam notes, some child probably did. After all, if we predict an evil consequence for anyone who does not follow our advice, the odds are good that the consequence, if not too outlandish, will indeed befall somebody. That person will then become firmly convinced of the truth of your claim). It's worth noting that Rambam clearly interprets ma`avir beno la-molekh as meaning that the child survives the ordeal.

In any case, Rambam notes, the cost of following this advice is relatively minimal; since fathers are extremely concerned with their children's welfare and since women tend to be convinced by such claims, these practices became widespread. Rambam mentions a midwives custom contemporary to his time, to throw some material on a fire and to fumigate a child soon after being born. He assumes that that custom has its roots in the ancient passing a child through the fire ritual. Although he does not say so, he seems to think of that as a kind of idolatry as well.

THE IDOLATRY OF SUPERSTITION

Rambam does not mention that these midwives have an idol or avodah zarah in mind when they do this to the child. Apparently, then, he sees the act of passing a child over the fire soon after birth (to protect it from harm) as an example of ma`avir beno u-vito even if there was no intent to direct that action toward a false deity. For Rambam , the prohibition seems to lie more in believing that supernatural cures work than in specifically directing our attention from God to a false god. If that were true, any sorts of good luck talismans or charms or practices might fit Rambam's definition.

I point that out because it brings us back to the point that came up last week and that I believe will come up again later in this chapter-- the problem with idolatry for Rambam wasn't so much the worship of foreign gods, but the belief that forces other than those embedded by Hashem in nature and Hashem himself could meaningfully affect the world. That belief was itself the problem with Molekh. Le-Halakhah, I have little doubt that if someone put their child through the fire with no thought of Molekh in their mind, Rambam would not contrue that as idolatry. But conceptually, he saw little difference.

PROPERTY AND AGRICULTURE

The threats we noticed in the case of children were applied to property and agriculture as well, in Rambam's view. Thus the practice of asherah, dedicating a tree in every orchard to an idol, and the first fruits of every tree, were enforced with the threat that if one didn't offer the first fruits of a tree (not of every year's harvest) the tree would wither and die.

To counteract that belief, the Torah ordained orlah, since all trees yield their first fruits within the first three years. By prohibiting the use of those fruits for any purpose whatsoever-- and ordering that the fourth years fruits be eaten in Yerushalayim-- the Torah had successfully circumventedthe idolatrous practice.

If I could pause for a moment of theological musing, this last piece of Rambam's argument does not quite work in my mind. The notion that God would completely prohibit the first three years to counteract the idolatrous claim makes a great deal of sense, but substituting eating the fourth year fruits at the Miqdash instead of in front of idols just sort of substitutes one kind of idol-worship for (le-havdil) another one-- if people believe that unless they toss their fruits in the air to an idol their crops will wither and die, how deep a lesson does it teach them to substitute God for the idol? This whole line of reasoning seems less than satisfactory to me.

THE CONNECTION TO AGRICULTURE

Rambam also mentions other agricultural practices in which it was clear that the focus of the idol-worship was producing a better harvest. He first mentions that they had the custom of allowing certain things to rot and then place them around the tree at certain signs of the Zodiac, in order for the tree to produce fruit faster. The remedy, according to Rambam, was to prohibit the first three years of fruit, since after that time the vast majority of trees already naturally give fruit (so there would be no more need to hasten it).

I mention that example in particular because it forces us to consider an element of the problem that Rambam does not notice-- since this practice is reminiscent of modern fertilizing techniques, we have to wonder when a practice is idolatrous (by virtue of its being connected to the stars, etc.) and when we can consider it part of nature? This is a question that comes up often in darkhei haEmori or huqqot ha`akum discussions. Given the way Rambam expressed the issue, though, it was worth noting again.

Rambam also says that the idolaters used to graft trees and mingle seeds, because they had the tradition that if they did that at certain times, accompanied by certain lewd acts, it would help the yield of the tree. Obviously, Rambam mentions this to explain the prohibition of kilayim. Noting that grafting was the real idolatrous practice helps him explain why that is prohibited everywhere, whereas mingling seeds is only prohibited in Israel. It also offers a reason for R. Yoshiah's view that a person does not transgress the prohibition of kilayim unless one throw of the hand (one act of planting) includes wheat, barley, and some grape-seeds. Rambam can now posit that he must have had some tradition that that was the way idolaters did it.

Having shown why he believes that these various prohibitions all also stemmed from idolatry and the need to distance ourselves from it, Rambam is done. I just wanted to pause for a moment of sympathy with those who followed these practices in times of yore. Faced with an unpredictable world (for them; many areas of science are shockingly young), these farmers simply wanted a way to avoid starvation. Without in any way endorsing their practices, I thought it worth a moment to empathize with their plight. In addition, it makes starkly clear Rambam's view of the gift of monotheism to the world. It is not only that there is only one God, that that God has no body, etc. Most important is that there are only two realms of the world we need to concern ourselves with-- the natural world, amenable to scientific study and discovery, and the realm of God, relatively inaccessible to human intellection. It is not only about God's supposed jealousy, it's about understanding correctly how the world works.

CHAPTER 38

Chapter 38 is really brief, so I thought we'd knock it off now as well. The third class are the laws that develop moral qualities, mostly those Rambam included in Hilkhot De`ot. Rambam notes that some laws thought of as huqim (having no discernible reason) actually come to inculcate a specific moral virtue, which he will explain as they become relevant.

While that's all he has to say, I wanted to point out that the reason he gives for the development of good moral character is that it allows for human society to function smoothly. We'll have to think about this more, but Rambam seems to say that the value of honesty (or any other moral quality) is only that it helps people live in society together. For our relationship with God, however, he does not mention any value whatsoever (although he does in Hilkhot De`ot-- we'll have to ponder his attitude towards morality in coming weeks.) Next week is Rambam's view of the Laws of Seeds.