5784/2023
Avoda Zara Alert
Moshe Rabbeinu in Sefer Devarim devotes much time to warning us about Avoda Zara. Eretz Canaan was awash with Avoda Zara, as described in Devarim 12:2, and Moshe Rabbeinu feared we would follow the behavior of those we conquered. Historical examples abound of the conquering nation adopting the culture of the conquered people (as when Rome captured Greece), and Moshe Rabbeinu is concerned the same would happen to us. Devarim 12:29-13:1 records a specific worry regarding our upcoming encounter with Canaanite idolatry.
Avodat Elohim Zara vs. Avodat Elokim Zara
We will distinguish between Avodat Elohim Zara and Avodat Elokim Zara (we refer to a foreign, i.e.,false, god as Elohim and Hashem, the true God, as Elokim). Avodat Elohim Zara refers to worshiping a foreign god. Avodat Elokim Zara means serving Hashem strangely. Serving Hashem strangely refers to incorporating foreign practices and beliefs into our service of Hashem.
Devarim 12:29 to 13:1 – Avodat Elohim Zara orAvodat Elokim Zara
The Mefarshim debate whether Moshe Rabbeinu in Devarim 12:29 to 13:1 discusses Avodat Elohim Zara or Avodat Elokim Zara. The Pesukim mention mimicking idolatrous practice. Rashi (to Devarim 12:30 s.v. Eicha Ya’avdu) believes that these Pesukim refer to Avodat Elohim Zara. Moshe Rabbeinu fears that when we encounter Canaanite Avoda Zara, we will be curious and imitate actual Avoda Zara.
Ramban, however, explains that Moshe Rabbeinu fears that we will incorporate Canaanite practices in our Avodat Hashem. Ramban proves his understanding from Pasuk 31, which warns us “not to do this for Hashem.” Ramban understands the Pasuk as forbidding us to “do this for Hashem,” not to serve Hashem in the Canaanite style.
We marshal two other proofs to Ramban. First, Perek 13 Pasuk 1 warns us not to add or detract from the Torah. This admonishment seems strange since Moshe Rabbeinu warned us not to add or subtract from the Torah in Devarim 4:2. However if the prior two Pesukim prohibit Avodat Elokim Zara, Pasuk 1 fits perfectly. Avodat Elokim Zara inevitably involves adding or subtracting
from the Torah. Thus, Moshe Rabbeinu reminds us not to add or remove from the Torah. In other words, we should not try to “improve” the Torah by integrating what we find appealing in the Canaanite Avoda Zara.
Second, it would be difficult for Bnai Yisrael to drastically leap from pure Avodat Hashem to pure Avoda Zara at their first encounter. A first step would be to adapt Avoda Zara practices into Avodat Hashem. Avodat Elokim Zara is a “gateway drug” to enter the horrid world of Avoda Zara. Thus, it makes sense that Moshe Rabbeinu specifically warns us of Avodat Elokim Zara in his speeches in Sefer Devarim, preparing us for our upcoming entry into Eretz Yisrael.
Most major classic commentaries agree with Ramban. Included in this list are the Ibn Ezra, Seforno, and Chizkuni.
Contemporary Applications – Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Schachter
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik invoked this Ramban when famously ruling in the 1940s that it is better to miss Rosh Hashanah Shofar blowing than hear it in a non-Orthodox congregation with mixed seating. Rav Soloveitchik noted that non-Orthodox groups adopted the practice of mixed seating from the church. Rav Hershel Schachter (B’Ikvei HaTzon pages 33-34) cites Rav Soloveitchik marshaling Tosafot (Sanhedrin 52b s.v Asher) and the Rambam (Hilchot Avoda Zara 11:1) as subscribing to the Ramban’s prohibiting of incorporating foreign elements into our Avodat Hashem.
Rav Schachter, in turn, in the 1980s, applied Rav Soloveitchik’s ruling as one of his many reasons to prohibit “women’s Tefillah groups” that seek to conduct a sort of women’s Minyan without technical Halachic violation. Rav Schachter believes this practice is Avodat Elokim Zara because it incorporates a foreign ideology into Torah practice. Rav Schachter broadens Rav Soloveitchik’s approach to include idolatrous practices and foreign ideologies in our Avodat Hashem. Rav Schachter’s ruling is well-accepted in mainstream Orthodox communities.
Conclusion
Sadly, much of Am Yisrael did not heed Moshe Rabbeinu’s warning. Sefer Melachim records that Yaravam ben Nevat’s religious reforms lead to spiritual catastrophe. Yaravam first directs the aberrant service to Hashem; however, the service eventually (during the time of Achav) devolves into outright Avodah Zara. As noted in Melachim I Perek 19, during Achav’s reign, barely seven thousand northern Bnei Yisrael refrained from Avodah Zara.
Eventually, the Assyrians exiled northern Am Yisrael from Eretz Yisrael, and these members of Am Yisrael subsequently assimilated into the surrounding culture. The Gemara (Megillah 14b) relates that Yirmiyahu HaNavi tried retrieving them after the Assyrian Empire’s fall during the reign of Yoshiyahu. But, unfortunately, he only succeeded in returning a small number of them.
Moshe Rabbeinu’s concern for Avodat Elokim Zara remains relevant today. Unfortunately, non-Orthodox versions of Judaism have served as gateways to assimilation for millions of American Jews. For example, in 1988, when the Reform movement’s flagship Temple Emanuel of New York celebrated its one-hundredth birthday, it sought to identify and invite the descendants of its founders. To their surprise and chagrin, they discovered that no descendant of the original members continued to identify as Jewish.
Each generation must resist the temptation to add or detract from the Torah to fit the spirit of the times. We must also steadfastly stick to Torah values and not graft foreign elements onto the “Etz Chaim,” the Torah. The Etz Chaim rejects such illegitimate interpolations,and they miserably fail the test of time. From Yaravam ben Nevat to recent non-Orthodox religious reforms have repeatedly led to long-term disasters. As Mishlei 1:5 teaches, “Yishma Chacham, VeYosef Lekach,” let the wise reflect and learn a profoundly important lesson.