Q&A: Why One Must Be Killed Rather Than Commit Idolatry Under Coercion
Why One Must Be Killed Rather Than Commit Idolatry Under Coercion
Question
Hello Rabbi Michael. I do not fully understand the rule that one must be killed rather than commit idolatry under coercion. Sexual prohibitions and murder are understandable, because of the severity of the outcome. But in that same law it is not mentioned that the requirement is to accept that idol as a god; after all, his heart is not in idolatry. And certainly a religious court does not punish him if he transgressed and did not allow himself to be killed, as Maimonides wrote. Also, even if one worships it out of love or fear, he is exempt unless he accepts it upon himself as a god. That implies that the act is not considered idolatry if he does so only outwardly, without intending it inwardly and without accepting it upon himself as a god. If so, why is the requirement that he be killed rather than transgress? With esteem, and your reward doubled, Nehorai Yahav
Answer
I have always wondered about this law. As far as I remember, Nadav Shenarav dealt with it in his article (if I am not mistaken, its title in Hebrew is "Reflections on Idolatry").
Perhaps the obligation to be killed applies even though in truth there is no full prohibition of idolatry here, similar to the law of adjuncts of idolatry. Or perhaps this case is more stringent than adjuncts, since this itself is the very way one transgresses idolatry under coercion; and if we learned that there is a rule of "be killed rather than transgress" regarding idolatry, this is the only conceivable case in which to apply it. According to this, even if one is not killed rather than transgress over adjuncts of idolatry, here one would be killed rather than transgress. Still, the question is a good one. See Nadav there.
Discussion on Answer
That is exactly my claim above. There is an obligation to die even though there is no full idolatry transgression here. This is a Torah-level decree. You are suggesting an explanation for the decree: concern about influence, that others may come to practice idolatry. I agree; I only pointed out what the source in the Torah is for this Torah-level decree. Without it, there is no basis for the rule of "be killed rather than transgress" in the case of idolatry.
By the way, for this reason Maimonides elaborated in the Epistle on Apostasy that those who are coerced and practice idolatry without allowing themselves to be killed are considered righteous!
And seemingly the sin of desecration of God's name is the greatest of all, so how could they be considered righteous? The answer is apparently that this is not really actual idolatry… And according to this, perhaps even not allowing oneself to be killed over idolatry is not really a sin…
See Laws of the Foundations of the Torah 5:4. It does not seem that way.
I thought to suggest that even with idolatry under coercion there is harmfulness in the outcome, because an onlooker will think there is something real to idolatry and will perpetuate the phenomenon.