Q&A: Laws of the Prohibition of Bowing to an Idol
Laws of the Prohibition of Bowing to an Idol
Question
To Rabbi Michael, greetings,
It is well known that it is forbidden to bow to an idol.
But people did bow specifically in the direction of the Temple, toward the Holy of Holies, as though bowing toward the Tablets of the Covenant. Or even worse than that—to the cherubs.
It seems that today, for lack of choice, we make do with directing ourselves toward a place in space, which is also physical in the physicist’s sense. But in the time of the Temple there was actual orientation toward the Ark of the Covenant.
Obviously, the intention in bowing was to bow to the transcendent God who dwells in the Holy of Holies and not to a physical object, but it seems that the Tablets and the Ark of the Covenant are a symbol toward which one bows, and that this spatial orientation symbolizes the intention toward God who rests upon the Ten Commandments.
So does the Rabbi think that, at least on the Torah level, it is not idolatry to bow toward a cross with the intention that the bowing is not to the statue but to the transcendent God, and the cross is only a symbol?
How can we say in Aleinu, “for they bow to vanity and emptiness and pray to a god who cannot save”? Why is it permitted in the Temple but forbidden with a cross? And this is a gentile, who is not obligated in the Temple. Is he not permitted to offer to God on a private altar? After all, this is a “blessing” to our God, whom they also share, to say of Him that He is vanity and emptiness and a god who cannot save.
(And let us set aside the question of embodying God as a human being, since as long as the claim is that this is one God, one could rely on the Raavad, who challenged Maimonides’ demand for complete abstraction of God. And would we say that kabbalists who spoke of the ten sefirot were practicing idolatry? Also, one could argue that Jesus represents the Logos or the angel of the Lord, who appears as a mediator for prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, in medieval Jewish philosophy, and in Heikhalot literature—and it is clear that in Christianity the intention is that Jesus is the Logos, already from the opening of the Gospel according to John.)
Alternatively, what about bowing to a statue of Buddha in order to honor Buddha’s path, without intending that the statue itself is a god?
Of course I have a natural Jewish aversion to this, but as someone who studies religions and tries to subordinate the heart to the intellect, this is a question that interests me very much.
Many thanks for the wonderful answers,
Answer
Hello A.,
You have mixed together quite a few things here.
Bowing in itself is not forbidden (except because of the prohibition of a figured stone on a floor), unless it is done to idolatry. Moreover, what determines the matter is not what is standing in front of you, but to whom you are bowing. Therefore bowing toward the Temple is not forbidden.
Bowing to the cherubs was never done. The fact that the cherubs are standing in front of you does not mean you bowed to them. The same applies to the Ark of the Covenant. And note well: I do not mean that the bowing was done to the Holy One, blessed be He, through them, but that it was not directed toward them at all, rather to the Holy One, blessed be He, directly and not through them. They were simply standing there in the way.
Beyond that, bowing is forbidden only if it is the manner in which that idolatry is worshipped. Therefore bowing to a cross, even if it is done to the God whom it represents, is forbidden, because that is their mode of worship. Besides that, it is also forbidden to worship the Holy One, blessed be He, through intermediaries (see Maimonides at the beginning of the Laws of Idolatry).
Once there is a Temple, it is forbidden to offer sacrifices to God on a private altar. And certainly not to offer them outside the halakhic rules.
The problem with Christianity is not necessarily the god they worship, but the way they worship and describe him (unless one accepts Maimonides’ parable of the elephant, according to which a different description points to a different god). So this is not specifically about embodiment.
Allegorical interpretations (such as saying that God is the Logos) exist everywhere, including among us. About this I would say two things: 1. This is the domain of scholars, but the public does not see it that way. 2. Even the scholars do not necessarily mean that there is no literal interpretation, only an allegorical one. The allegory is added on top of the plain meaning. So too with our own allegorists.
Some non-kabbalistic thinkers did indeed criticize the kabbalists with the very criticism you raise here (see, for example, the early Shomer Emunim). But the kabbalists (see there) argued that there is a distinction between worship through intermediaries (such as the heavenly bodies), which was forbidden, and worship through the sefirot and the partzufim in Atzilut. Atzilut is, as it were, the garments of the Holy One, blessed be He, and therefore turning to Him through them is like turning to Him directly. Just as when I address you, I am really addressing your body, since that is all I see. But the heavenly bodies and everything in the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah beneath Atzilut are separate, created entities, and therefore turning to Him through them is forbidden as idolatry.
Discussion on Answer
A. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness.” See the commentators on Maimonides for the earlier sources. In the Hebrew Bible there are anthropomorphic descriptions, and in fact every description is like that. But there are no statues there.
B. In Zevachim 116b it is brought that gentiles are permitted. There too an incident is brought in which Rava instructed Ifra Hormiz (the mother of King Shapur) how to offer a sacrifice. And Maimonides rules this way at the end of the Laws of the Sacrificial Service:
“The one who slaughters consecrated offerings of gentiles outside [the Temple] is liable, and likewise one who offers them up outside; but gentiles are permitted to offer burnt offerings for the sake of the Name in any place, provided they offer them on a private altar that they build. It is forbidden to assist them or act as their agents, since it has been forbidden to us to offer outside; but it is permitted to instruct them and teach them how to offer for the sake of the blessed God.”
C. The closer parallel is to the kabbalistic conception that Israel, the Holy One blessed be He, and the Torah are one. And indeed opinions differ on whether Christians are idolaters or not.
D. If the bowing is not a manner of worship, but a kind of respectful gesture toward his path, it seems to me there is no prohibition in that. But if there are Buddhists who see this as idolatry, then once again we have entered the discussion of the prohibition of worshipping in its accepted manner.
A. According to the view that Christians are not idolaters—is it permitted to enter churches?
B. Is it permitted to enter a place that has Buddha statues that are not worshipped, or where people bow before them as a sign of appreciation for Buddha’s path (which, in my opinion, would make any bowing forbidden according to what you wrote, because as I recall there are Buddhists who deteriorated into worshipping Buddha as a god, even though as I understand it that was not the intention of original Buddhism—and therefore in any case this is their mode of worship), even though there are Buddhists elsewhere on the globe who bow and worship Buddha as a god who is part of a plurality of gods?
This is relevant for me, because sometimes I consider studying Buddhism or traveling in India, but the concern that there is no house there without idolatry bothers me a lot (or that wherever Buddhism is taught there are also statues for decoration or in honor of the path). But if there are places where no idol worship is practiced and there is only a statue there, then the picture is different.
Thanks again!
A. It seems to me that according to the strict law, yes. But since they invented a religion out of their own hearts, it seems not recommended.
B. If it is not a house of idolatry, there is no prohibition. Like entering a museum with statues.
Forgive me, Rabbi,
But where have we found such a leniency to enter churches? On the contrary, there is a very severe prohibition against entering a church, and see the responsum of our master Rabbi Ovadia Yosef of blessed memory:
http://halachayomit.co.il/he/default.aspx?HalachaID=681
The very act of entering a church brings a spirit of impurity upon the Jew and causes him to transgress afterward, Heaven forbid.
Ariel, note that Rabbi Ovadia assumes that Christians are indeed idolaters (and I am sure that answer is abbreviated. I once saw in Yechaveh Da’at that he did discuss the different opinions on the matter).
Rabbi,
All Christians have the presumption of being idolaters. One cannot rely on the various “denominations,” some of which believe in the Trinity and some of which do not.
How do we know that a devout Christian who does not believe in the Trinity is not entertaining idolatrous thoughts, and from time to time thinks that perhaps he is mistaken and in truth the Trinity that other Christians believe in is correct?
Rabbi Ovadia also addressed the fact that the church itself is idolatry, even if it is not a Catholic church.
I have a question:
If someone were to hold a gun to your head and say to you (even if this were in front of one or two people privately and not before ten publicly): bow to this or that statue (and you do not believe in it at all; they are only forcing you to bow and nothing more), what would you do?
Would you bow in a purely external way without belief in this or that statue, or would you refuse and sanctify the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the world?
Ariel, even a Christian who believes in the Trinity does not necessarily commit a transgression. There are opinions that gentiles were not commanded against idolatry by way of association—that is, God plus something else; in this case Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Indeed, the nations of the world do not have the capacity to grasp the unity of the Creator, blessed be He, with spiritual perception in the way Israel does, and therefore one can say that they are not commanded regarding association. However, all that is when speaking about them.
But when speaking about Israel—since Israel is forbidden even to come near a house of idolatry, out of concern lest he entertain idolatrous thoughts, Heaven forbid, and since this is such a severe Torah prohibition—one must be concerned and stringent in this case and not compromise by allowing Jews to enter a church, Heaven forbid.
What I am writing to you, Rabbi, is written by someone whose parents are Christians in every respect and who left their worship and gave his life to go in the path of truth in which Abraham our father walked. So who knows and understands this religion better than I do, more than Jews by birth who never lived it? And who knows better than I how careful one must be with every little thing connected to Christianity?
Would you let your children visit churches?
Welcome, and more power to you for your self-sacrifice. Fortunate are you and fortunate is your lot.
I understand your position, and still I have not seen an argument. The fact that idolatrous thoughts pass through someone’s mind from time to time does not make his whole group into idolaters. Such thoughts may occasionally pass through Jews’ minds too.
As for familiarity, it is not enough to know Christianity from the inside; one must also know and understand well the Jewish laws relevant to the matter. On the contrary, deep familiarity and deep identification—or deep lack of identification—can sometimes lead to halakhic conclusions that are not correct.
I said that in my view it is not desirable to visit, even if this is not idolatry. That is what I say to my children as well.
Rabbi,
Let us assume that one of your children wanted to visit a church and became enthusiastic about the interior design there.
And let us also assume that afterward he would want to visit that place a few more times.
It is known to us that any place that contains any impurity at all—it is forbidden to spend time there, because we absorb everything from our surroundings; and we have learned that even the greatest righteous person who lives in a place of wicked people will eventually become wicked like them. This we learn from Korach and his congregation, about whom Rashi wrote: “Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor.”
Therefore a place like a church—one must be careful not to enter there at all, because just as with a commandment, from doing it not for its own sake one comes to do it for its own sake, so too with something simple and seemingly harmless, from doing it not for its own sake one may come to do it for its own sake, and that is enough for the perceptive.
I truly do not understand you, Rabbi, how you take the lenient approach in such a serious matter.
Earlier I asked a question and the Rabbi did not answer it: if they forced you to bow, just externally, to a statue that idolaters had bowed to, what would you do in such a case?
Hello Ariel.
You keep mixing different planes of discussion. I was speaking about Jewish law, and you are speaking about matters that are not halakhic.
Your use of concepts like impurity and wicked people is also, in my opinion, greatly exaggerated. Not all Christians are wicked. On the contrary, in my estimation most of them are not wicked. Nor am I concerned about influences resulting from entering a church. It seems very far-fetched to me that Jews would be influenced by this. Many enter such places, and I have not seen them all converting to Christianity or being influenced in Christian directions. There is a halakhic prohibition, and one should be careful about it, but there is no need to pile on far-fetched concerns here in order to strengthen it artificially.
As for your question, it is of course not connected to our discussion in any way. In the simple sense, the Jewish law requires self-sacrifice over this. However, there is room to discuss, based on Maimonides in the Laws of Idolatry 3:6, who wrote that one who worships out of love or fear is exempt, whether according to his view one also would not be required to give up one’s life for this. First, one must discuss whether there is here a Torah-level prohibition of idolatry at all; and even if not, there are still those who hold that the obligation of self-sacrifice applies even to accessories of idolatry.
Forgive me, Rabbi,
But my descriptions of Christians are not exaggerated at all, because there is no one wiser than one with experience.
With all due respect to the Rabbi and his halakhic knowledge—I know things about Christianity that you do not know, and from personal experience I have seen things, even in the modern era, that confirmed my position.
Does the Rabbi know that those Christians (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses) who do not believe in the Trinity are considered cults and not major denominations within Christianity, in the eyes of Christians? You are invited to ask any Christian from a major denomination what he thinks of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and you will understand on your own.
Since that is the reality, there is no modern Christian denomination that does not practice idolatry (aside from a few small groups considered cults).
As you said earlier, even if we say that a gentile was not forbidden to associate the Creator with some additional entity—still for a Jew even that is forbidden and is considered idolatry in every respect, as it says: “There is none besides Him,” meaning there is no other power in the world that can do anything besides the Creator, blessed be He; therefore He alone rules, and no one else.
You claimed that my view is exaggerated. Well then, see the words of Rabbi Chaim Palachi on this subject in the responsa Chaim BeYad (sec. 26):
“…Regarding certain Jews who went to a house of idolatry to accompany the consul, and entered their house of prayer, he elaborated to prove the prohibition of this from the Talmud and the halakhic authorities, and concluded: Let your heart not persuade you to say that in our time there is no idolatry, as the halakhic authorities wrote regarding several matters; for this applies only regarding the gentiles, that they are not judged literally as idolaters, but their house of prayer, prepared for calamity, where they burn incense to idolatry, is considered a house of idolatry, and it has not departed from the contamination of impurity and the Other Side, etc.” See there. Thus there is no distinction in this regard between their time and ours…
And also see
Igrot Moshe, Yoreh De’ah part 3, sec. 129, paragraph 6;
Tzitz Eliezer part 14, sec. 91;
Yabia Omer part 2, Yoreh De’ah sec. 11;
Yechaveh Da’at part 4, sec. 45.
It seems we will not agree on this matter, and of course my position on this is clear, because I not only studied Christianity but experienced it with all 248 limbs and 365 sinews, and therefore my position will always be to be stringent and not lenient.
I wanted to say one last thing unrelated to this discussion:
I once read an article of yours about the status of a righteous convert in Jewish society, and if I recall correctly you were the first to make me see in a different light the attitude of Jewish law toward a righteous convert—that it comes דווקא to benefit him and not, Heaven forbid, to harm him—and you proved your point beautifully from the sources. More power to you for that!
May God protect you, and may there be good tidings and all the best!
Hello Ariel.
Unfortunately, your discussion is not to the point. What do these or those cults have to do with the question of Christianity in general? Does Judaism not also have cults (some of them close to idolatry)?
Even the Trinity can be understood in different ways, and in Kabbalah there is also a very similar idea: the Holy One, blessed be He, Israel, and the Torah are one (and in the name of the Ari I once heard: literally one in the plain sense). What is that if not a trinity? And what about Hasidism, which claims that the contraction is not literal—meaning that everything is divinity? And what about Rabbi Kook, to whom panentheism is attributed (everything is in divinity—in other words, we are divinity)? Now what remains is the question of interpretations. And as is known, the question of interpretations is fed by the degree of your empathy for the subject. Once I read (in Tzohar, issue 1 or 2?) a critique of Christianity by Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook. It was ridiculous. There are far more difficult questions about Judaism, but here, because we have empathy, we will find excuses and interpretations. Forgive me, but to paint all Christians as wicked, stupid, or idolaters is ridiculous in my view.
Thank you for the compliments about the article. I will only note that if you ask halakhic decisors today (including some of those you cited), I think they would not agree with my opinion there. So regarding the attitude toward Christians as well, I do not claim that my view matches the view of the halakhic decisors, and I have no interest in entering into comparisons.
Thank you very much for the detailed answer!
On this I would ask—
A. Where is it said that it is forbidden to describe God in one form or another? Is this in the Talmud? In the Hebrew Bible? Did Maimonides invent the prohibition? On what basis?
On the contrary, in the Hebrew Bible there are many anthropomorphic descriptions.
B. Is it also forbidden for gentiles to offer on a private altar, or only for Jews?
C. So the question is: are Christians committing a transgression by bowing to the cross while describing one God who has three faces? It seems that for Christians we are speaking about a god who is something like an organism, who has a body (Jesus), and also a transcendent soul (the Father), and also a spirit (the Holy Spirit). This seems very similar to the biblical description, and if there is no prohibition on bowing in front of a cross and the cross functions like the Ark of the Covenant, then what is the problem?
D. Does the Rabbi think it is permitted for a Jew to bow in front of a statue of Buddha when the Buddhists themselves do not believe they are bowing to Buddha as a body, but rather as honor for his path (and I do not know—perhaps also to commitment to the laws of existence that obligate the Buddha’s path, the dharma, such as karma, which is similar to bowing in Judaism to a “higher power” that judges man)? Seemingly this is not bowing to the statue but merely in front of it, like in the Temple, and there is also no embodiment here at all. (Though there are indeed Buddhists who depart from original Buddhism and see Buddha as a god [and then he has a body, as among Christians or in the plain sense of biblical verses]. But that is not all Buddhists; and if so, one can also slaughter meat as part of idolatry and also in order to prepare a Sabbath meal.)
Thanks again, and have a good week,