Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 1

בִימֵי אֱנוֹשׁ טָעוּ בְּנֵי הָאָדָם טָעוּת גָּדוֹל וְנִבְעֲרָה עֲצַת חַכְמֵי אוֹתוֹ הַדּוֹר וֶאֱנוֹשׁ עַצְמוֹ מִן הַטּוֹעִים הָיָה. וְזוֹ הָיְתָה טָעוּתָם. אָמְרוּ הוֹאִיל וְהָאֱלֹהִים בָּרָא כּוֹכָבִים אֵלּוּ וְגַלְגַּלִּים לְהַנְהִיג אֶת הָעוֹלָם וּנְתָנָם בַּמָּרוֹם וְחָלַק לָהֶם כָּבוֹד וְהֵם שַׁמָּשִׁים הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁים לְפָנָיו רְאוּיִין הֵם לְשַׁבְּחָם וּלְפָאֲרָם וְלַחֲלֹק לָהֶם כָּבוֹד. וְזֶהוּ רְצוֹן הָאֵל בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְגַדֵּל וּלְכַבֵּד מִי שֶׁגִּדְּלוֹ וְכִבְּדוֹ. כְּמוֹ שֶׁהַמֶּלֶךְ רוֹצֶה לְכַבֵּד הָעוֹמְדִים לְפָנָיו וְזֶהוּ כְּבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָלָה דָּבָר זֶה עַל לִבָּם הִתְחִילוּ לִבְנוֹת לַכּוֹכָבִים הֵיכָלוֹת וּלְהַקְרִיב לָהֶן קָרְבָּנוֹת וּלְשַׁבְּחָם וּלְפָאֲרָם בִּדְבָרִים וּלְהִשְׁתַּחֲווֹת לְמוּלָם כְּדֵי לְהַשִּׂיג רְצוֹן הַבּוֹרֵא בְּדַעְתָּם הָרָעָה. וְזֶה הָיָה עִקַּר עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. וְכָךְ הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים עוֹבְדֶיהָ הַיּוֹדְעִים עִקָּרָהּ. לֹא שֶׁהֵן אוֹמְרִים שֶׁאֵין שָׁם אֱלוֹהַּ אֶלָּא כּוֹכָב זֶה. הוּא שֶׁיִּרְמְיָהוּ אוֹמֵר מִי לֹא יִרָאֲךָ מֶלֶךְ הַגּוֹיִם כִּי לְךָ יָאָתָה כִּי בְכָל חַכְמֵי הַגּוֹיִם וּבְכָל מַלְכוּתָם מֵאֵין כָּמוֹךָ וּבְאַחַת יִבְעֲרוּ וְיִכְסָלוּ מוּסַר הֲבָלִים עֵץ הוּא. כְּלוֹמַר הַכּל יוֹדְעִים שֶׁאַתָּה הוּא לְבַדְּךָ אֲבָל טָעוּתָם וּכְסִילוּתָם שֶׁמְּדַמִּים שֶׁזֶּה הַהֶבֶל רְצוֹנְךָ הוּא: During the times of Enosh,¹the grandson of Adam. See Genesis 4:26, 5:6-11. Enosh lived from the year 235 after creation to the year 1140 (3525 to 2620 B.C.E.). mankind made a great mistake, and the wise men of that generation gave thoughtless counsel.²Interestingly, the Rambam does not attribute the rise of paganism to simple commoners, but to the "wise" of the generation. Enosh himself was one of those who erred.³Our text of Shabbat 118b mentions that "the generation of Enosh" were idol worshipers. However, certain versions of that text omit the words "generation of." (See She'iltot D'Rabbi Achai Gaon, Bereshit.)
Their mistake was as follows: They said God created stars and spheres⁴See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 3, for a description of the stars and the spheres, and their place within the Rambam's conception of the cosmos. with which to control the world. He placed them on high and treated them with honor, making them servants who minister before Him.⁵i.e., mediums of Divine influence Accordingly, it is fitting to praise and glorify them and to treat them with honor.⁶Rashi finds an allusion to the worship of false gods in Enosh's times in Genesis 4:26: which he renders, "It was then that they called profanely upon the name of God." [They perceived] this to be the will of God, blessed be He, that they magnify and honor those whom He magnified and honored, just as a king desires that the servants who stand before him be honored. Indeed, doing so is an expression of honor to the king.⁷In Hilchot Yesodei Torah, ibid., and in several places in the Guide for the Perplexed, the Rambam explains that the stars and the spheres are on a higher plane than the creations of our world. Though they influence our world, they are also God's creations and have no free will of their own. Thus, they are no more than an axe in the hands of a wood-chopper, and should not worshiped or served.
After conceiving of this notion, they began to construct temples to the stars⁸Note the Rambam's comments on astrology in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:7), which are quoted in the commentary on Chapter 11, Halachah 16. and offer sacrifices to them. They would praise and glorify them with words, and prostrate themselves before them, because by doing so, they would⁹according to their false conception - It is questionable if such worship is forbidden to gentiles or not. Based on Deuteronomy 4:19, certain authorities maintain that the gentiles may worship other gods, provided they have the awareness that God is the ultimate power (שיתוף).
The Rambam, however, does not mention this perspective in these halachot, nor in Hilchot Melachim, Chapter 9, where he discusses the prohibition against the worship of false gods as it affects gentiles. [In Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 2), however, he states "Israel is commanded regarding the unification of God"; from which it could be inferred that gentiles need not believe in this concept and can combine their worship of God with other powers.] All authorities agree that such worship is forbidden for Jews. - according to their false conception - be fulfilling the will of God.¹⁰It is unclear from the Rambam's statements here whether, originally, they would worship the stars without any self-interest - merely with the intent of honoring those whom God honors - or whether their service was self-oriented - i.e., they worshiped the stars because they considered them as mediums of Divine influence and hoped to derive benefit from of their service. In the following halachah and in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:7), the Rambam mentions the second view. It is, however, unclear if this was the original intent of the star-worshipers or whether this was a later development.
This was the essence of the worship of false gods,¹¹See Chapter 2, Halachah 1. and this was the rationale of those who worshiped them.¹²at the outset. They would not say that there is no other god except for this star.¹³as the pagans mentioned in Halachah 2 later did. The first generations of star worshipers were aware of God's existence and conceived of the stars as no more than intermediaries between ourselves and Him.
This message was conveyed by Jeremiah, who declared¹⁴See also the Guide for the Perplexed (Vol. I, Chapter 36) where the Rambam explains a similar idea using the same Biblical proof-text. (10:7-8): "Who will not fear You, King of the nations, for to You it is fitting. Among all the wise men of the nations and in all their kingdoms, there is none like You. They have one foolish and senseless [notion. They conceive of their] empty teachings as wood;"¹⁵i.e., as an entity of substance i.e., all know that You alone are God. Their foolish error consists of conceiving of this emptiness¹⁶the worship of the stars
as Your will. - This and the following two halachot are somewhat problematic. The Rambam conceived of the Mishneh Torah as a book of law. He included philosophical and historical points only when they are halachot, directives for our behavior. In this light, this entire chapter seems unnecessary.
This difficulty can be resolved based on Chapter 2, Halachah 3, which states that it is forbidden to entertain thoughts of idol worship. Hence, in order to know which thoughts are forbidden, the Rambam feels it necessary to describe the entire thought process which led people to worship idols (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 20).
The phenomenon described by the Rambam does not belong entirely to the past. Although, at present, bowing down to the "stars and spheres" is not very common - although it has been renewed by some cultists - the theoretical premise that motivated the ancients to serve the stars is still followed by many. Is it all that uncommon to find people who compromise their service of God in expectation of receiving benefits by following what they perceive as the natural order? as Your will.

וְאַחַר שֶׁאָרְכוּ הַיָּמִים עָמְדוּ בִּבְנֵי הָאָדָם נְבִיאֵי שֶׁקֶר וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁהָאֵל צִוָּה וְאָמַר לָהֶם עִבְדוּ כּוֹכָב פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ כָּל הַכּוֹכָבִים וְהַקְרִיבוּ לוֹ וְנַסְּכוּ לוֹ כָּךְ וְכָךְ וּבְנוּ לוֹ הֵיכָל וַעֲשׂוּ צוּרָתוֹ כְּדֵי לְהִשְׁתַּחֲווֹת לוֹ כָּל הָעָם הַנָּשִׁים וְהַקְּטַנִּים וּשְׁאָר עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ. וּמוֹדִיעַ לָהֶם צוּרָה שֶׁבָּדָה מִלִּבּוֹ וְאוֹמֵר זוֹ הִיא צוּרַת הַכּוֹכָב פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוֹדִיעוּהוּ בִּנְבוּאָתוֹ. וְהִתְחִילוּ עַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת צוּרוֹת בַּהֵיכָלוֹת וְתַחַת הָאִילָנוֹת וּבְרָאשֵׁי הֶהָרִים וְעַל הַגְּבָעוֹת וּמִתְקַבְּצִין וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לָהֶם וְאוֹמְרִים לְכָל הָעָם שֶׁזּוֹ הַצּוּרָה מֵיטִיבָה וּמְרֵעָה וְרָאוּי לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְיִרְאָה מִמֶּנָּה. וְכֹהֲנֵיהֶם אוֹמְרִים לָהֶם שֶׁבַּעֲבוֹדָה זוֹ תִּרְבּוּ וְתַצְלִיחוּ וַעֲשׂוּ כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְאַל תַּעֲשׂוּ כָּךְ וְכָךְ. וְהִתְחִילוּ כּוֹזְבִים אֲחֵרִים לַעֲמֹד וְלוֹמַר שֶׁהַכּוֹכָב עַצְמוֹ אוֹ הַגַּלְגַּל אוֹ הַמַּלְאָךְ דִּבֵּר עִמָּהֶם וְאָמַר לָהֶם עִבְדוּנִי בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ וְהוֹדִיעַ לָהֶם דֶּרֶךְ עֲבוֹדָתוֹ וַעֲשׂוּ כָּךְ וְאַל תַּעֲשׂוּ כָּךְ. וּפָשַׁט דָּבָר זֶה בְּכָל הָעוֹלָם לַעֲבֹד אֶת הַצּוּרוֹת בַּעֲבוֹדוֹת מְשֻׁנּוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ וּלְהַקְרִיב לָהֶם וּלְהִשְׁתַּחֲווֹת. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁאָרְכוּ הַיָּמִים נִשְׁתַּכַּח הַשֵּׁם הַנִּכְבָּד וְהַנּוֹרָא מִפִּי כָּל הַיְקוּם וּמִדַּעְתָּם וְלֹא הִכִּירוּהוּ וְנִמְצְאוּ כָּל עַם הָאָרֶץ הַנָּשִׁים וְהַקְּטַנִּים אֵינָם יוֹדְעִים אֶלָּא הַצּוּרָה שֶׁל עֵץ וְשֶׁל אֶבֶן וְהַהֵיכָל שֶׁל אֲבָנִים שֶׁנִּתְחַנְּכוּ מִקַּטְנוּתָם לְהִשְׁתַּחֲווֹת לָהּ וּלְעָבְדָהּ וּלְהִשָּׁבַע בִּשְׁמָהּ. וְהַחֲכָמִים שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהֶם כְּגוֹן כֹּהֲנֵיהֶם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מְדַמִּין שֶׁאֵין שָׁם אֱלוֹהַּ אֶלָּא הַכּוֹכָבִים וְהַגַּלְגַּלִּים שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ הַצּוּרוֹת הָאֵלּוּ בִּגְלָלָם וּלְדַמּוֹתָן. אֲבָל צוּר הָעוֹלָמִים לֹא הָיָה שׁוּם אָדָם שֶׁהָיָה מַכִּירוֹ וְלֹא יוֹדְעוֹ אֶלָּא יְחִידִים בָּעוֹלָם כְּגוֹן חֲנוֹךְ וּמְתוּשֶׁלַח נֹחַ שֵׁם וְעֵבֶר. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה הָיָה הָעוֹלָם הוֹלֵךְ וּמִתְגַּלְגֵּל עַד שֶׁנּוֹלַד עַמּוּדוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם וְהוּא אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ: After many years passed, there arose people¹false prophets - Note Hilchot Yesodei Torah 9:5, which states that anyone who states that God told him in a prophetic vision to worship idols should automatically be considered a false prophet.
See also the Guide for the Perplexed (Vol. II, Chapter 36) where the Rambam describes how people can be overcome by their powers of imagination to the extent that they - as do others who see them in such a trance - think of themselves as prophets, although, in fact, they received no Divine influence. - false prophets - who told [their nations] that God had commanded them to say:²Thus, this represents a second stage in the spread of idol worship. At first - as explained in Halachah 1 - star worship was not institutionalized, but was practiced by individuals because of their mistaken conceptions.
The second phase involved the development of religious institutions and set modes of worship. The leaders, however, still recognized God and attributed the instructions to worship the stars to Him. In the third stage - as the latter portion of this halachah states - people would worship the stars and idols without any awareness of God. Serve this star³or all the stars - sacrifice to it, offer libations to it, build a temple for it and make an image of it so that all people - including the women, the children, and the common people - could bow to it. - See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:7) and his statements in Chapter 11, Halachah 16, where he explains that idol worship was instituted by the leaders of the nations to unite the people of a particular land, give them a sense of national identity, and establish a hierarchy of leaders. - or all the stars - sacrifice to it, offer libations to it, build a temple for it and make an image of it so that all people - including the women, the children, and the common people - could bow to it.
He would inform them of a form that he had conceived, and tell them that this is the image of the particular star, claiming that this was revealed to him in a prophetic vision.⁴With these statements, the Rambam explains how people began to worship statues and idols. Since the star was far away and could not be perceived as more than a twinkling dot in the sky, the people wanted a more tangible image which they could relate to. The "prophets" obliged and devised forms for statues to serve as talismans to bring down influence from these stars. In this manner, the people began to make images in temples, under trees, and on the tops of mountains and hills.⁵Note Deuteronomy 12:2, which commands the Jews to destroy "all the places where the nations... would worship their gods, on the high mountains, on the hills, or under any luxuriant tree." Note the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 45, where the Rambam mentions the gentile practice of building temples on hills and mountaintops.
People would gather together and bow down to them⁶the images and the [false prophets] would say: This image is the source of benefit or harm. It is appropriate to serve it and fear it. Their priests would tell them: This service will enable you to multiply and be successful. Do this and this, or do not do this or this.⁷At this stage, their service was clearly self-oriented. They wanted to derive benefit or prevent harm to themselves through this service.
Subsequently, other deceivers arose and declared that a specific star, sphere, or angel⁸See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 2, for a description of the angels. had spoken to them and commanded them: Serve me in this manner. He would then relate a mode of service [telling them:] Do this, do not do this.⁹This represented a further descent. Rather than prophesy in the name of God, these imposters would speak in the names of the idols themselves. (See also Chapter 5, Halachot 6-7.)
Thus, these practices spread throughout the world. People would serve images with strange practices¹⁰one more distorted than the other - Note Chapter 3, Halachah 2, which describes the service of Ba'al Pe'or. The people would defecate before the idol as an act of worship. - one more distorted than the other - offer sacrifices to them, and bow down to them. As the years passed, [God's] glorious and awesome name was forgotten by the entire population. [It was no longer part of] their speech or thought, and they no longer knew Him.¹¹It is not clear at which point in the history of the world this change took place. The period between Enosh's birth and Abraham's lasted slightly more than one thousand years, with the flood taking place approximately 750 years after Enosh's birth. Thus, all the common people, the women, and the children would know¹²Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Chulin 1:1), where he also differentiates between the people who believe in the spiritual service intended to draw down spiritual energy from these celestial bodies and practice it, and the common people who worship the idols blindly, on faith. only the image of wood or stone and the temples of stone to which they were trained from their childhood to bow down and serve, and in whose name they swore.¹³i.e., they conceived of the images as gods. Such worship represented more than a mere conceptual error. Six of the seven mitzvot commanded to Noach and his descendants were also given to Adam, the first man. Among them was the prohibition against serving other gods (Hilchot Melachim 9:1). Thus, by worshiping these images, they were breaking an explicit Divine commandment.
The wise men among them would¹⁴not worship the images as gods in their own right, but they would think that there is no God other than the stars and spheres for whose sake, and in resemblance of which, they had made these images. The Eternal Rock¹⁵the true God was not recognized or known by anyone in the world, with the exception of a [few] individuals:¹⁶Our Sages speak critically of these individuals, who were themselves righteous, but did nothing to influence the people around them.
for example - See also the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapter 39, where the Rambam cites these individuals as prophets.
Chanoch - Note Genesis 5:22: "And Chanoch walked with God."
Metushelach - Though his righteousness is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, it is mentioned by our Sages in a number of places - e.g., Yalkut Shimeoni, Bereshit 42, which states: "Metushelach was a completely righteous man."
Noach - See Genesis 6:9: "And Noach was a righteous man, perfect in his generation."
Shem - Noach's second son.
and Ever. - Shem and Ever are frequently mentioned by our Rabbis as righteous sages. See Bereishit Rabbah 63:6, which explains that when Rivkah went "to seek out God" (Genesis 25:22 , she went to the house of study of Shem and Ever.
The world continued in this fashion until the pillar of the world - the Patriarch Abraham - was born. - Abraham was born in the year 1948 (1812 B.C.E.). for example, Chanoch, Metushelach, Noach, Shem, and Ever. The world continued in this fashion until the pillar of the world - the Patriarch Abraham - was born.

כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּגְמַל אֵיתָן זֶה הִתְחִיל לְשׁוֹטֵט בְּדַעְתּוֹ וְהוּא קָטָן וְהִתְחִיל לַחֲשֹׁב בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה וְהָיָה תָּמֵהַּ הֵיאַךְ אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַגַּלְגַּל הַזֶּה נוֹהֵג תָּמִיד וְלֹא יִהְיֶה לוֹ מַנְהִיג וּמִי יְסַבֵּב אוֹתוֹ. כִּי אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיְּסַבֵּב אֶת עַצְמוֹ. וְלֹא הָיָה לוֹ מְלַמֵּד וְלֹא מוֹדִיעַ דָּבָר אֶלָּא מֻשְׁקָע בְּאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים בֵּין עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים הַטִּפְּשִׁים וְאָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְכָל הָעָם עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים וְהוּא עוֹבֵד עִמָּהֶם וְלִבּוֹ מְשׁוֹטֵט וּמֵבִין עַד שֶׁהִשִּׂיג דֶּרֶךְ הָאֱמֶת וְהֵבִין קַו הַצֶּדֶק מִתְּבוּנָתוֹ הַנְּכוֹנָה. וְיָדַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם אֱלוֹהַּ אֶחָד וְהוּא מַנְהִיג הַגַּלְגַּל וְהוּא בָּרָא הַכּל וְאֵין בְּכָל הַנִּמְצָא אֱלוֹהַּ חוּץ מִמֶּנּוּ. וְיָדַע שֶׁכָּל הָעוֹלָם טוֹעִים וְדָבָר שֶׁגָּרַם לָהֶם לִטְעוֹת זֶה שֶׁעוֹבְדִים אֶת הַכּוֹכָבִים וְאֶת הַצּוּרוֹת עַד שֶׁאָבַד הָאֱמֶת מִדַּעְתָּם. וּבֶן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה הִכִּיר אַבְרָהָם אֶת בּוֹרְאוֹ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִכִּיר וְיָדַע הִתְחִיל לְהָשִׁיב תְּשׁוּבוֹת עַל בְּנֵי אוּר כַּשְׂדִּים וְלַעֲרֹךְ דִּין עִמָּהֶם וְלוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ הָאֱמֶת שֶׁאַתֶּם הוֹלְכִים בָּהּ וְשִׁבֵּר הַצְּלָמִים וְהִתְחִיל לְהוֹדִיעַ לָעָם שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לַעֲבֹד אֶלָּא לֶאֱלוֹהַּ הָעוֹלָם וְלוֹ רָאוּי לְהִשְׁתַּחֲווֹת וּלְהַקְרִיב וּלְנַסֵּךְ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּכִּירוּהוּ כָּל הַבְּרוּאִים הַבָּאִים. וְרָאוּי לְאַבֵּד וּלְשַׁבֵּר כָּל הַצּוּרוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִטְעוּ בָּהֶן כָּל הָעָם כְּמוֹ אֵלּוּ שֶׁהֵם מְדַמִּים שֶׁאֵין שָׁם אֱלוֹהַּ אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁגָּבַר עֲלֵיהֶם בִּרְאָיוֹתָיו בִּקֵּשׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ לְהָרְגוֹ וְנַעֲשָׂה לוֹ נֵס וְיָצָא לְחָרָן. וְהִתְחִיל לַעֲמֹד וְלִקְרֹא בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל לְכָל הָעוֹלָם וּלְהוֹדִיעָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם אֱלוֹהַּ אֶחָד לְכָל הָעוֹלָם וְלוֹ רָאוּי לַעֲבֹד. וְהָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ וְקוֹרֵא וּמְקַבֵּץ הָעָם מֵעִיר לְעִיר וּמִמַּמְלָכָה לְמַמְלָכָה עַד שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן וְהוּא קוֹרֵא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כא לג) "וַיִּקְרָא שָׁם בְּשֵׁם ה' אֵל עוֹלָם". וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהָיוּ הָעָם מִתְקַבְּצִין אֵלָיו וְשׁוֹאֲלִין לוֹ עַל דְּבָרָיו הָיָה מוֹדִיעַ לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד כְּפִי דַּעְתּוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִירֵהוּ לְדֶרֶךְ הָאֱמֶת עַד שֶׁנִּתְקַבְּצוּ אֵלָיו אֲלָפִים וּרְבָבוֹת וְהֵם אַנְשֵׁי בֵּית אַבְרָהָם וְשָׁתַל בְּלִבָּם הָעִקָּר הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה וְחִבֵּר בּוֹ סְפָרִים וְהוֹדִיעוֹ לְיִצְחָק בְּנוֹ. וְיָשַׁב יִצְחָק מְלַמֵּד וּמַזְהִיר. וְיִצְחָק הוֹדִיעַ לְיַעֲקֹב וּמִנָּהוּ לְלַמֵּד וְיָשַׁב מְלַמֵּד וּמַחֲזִיק כָּל הַנִּלְוִים אֵלָיו. וְיַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ לִמֵּד בָּנָיו כֻּלָּם וְהִבְדִּיל לֵוִי וּמִנָּהוּ רֹאשׁ וְהוֹשִׁיבוֹ בִּישִׁיבָה לְלַמֵּד דֶּרֶךְ הַשֵּׁם וְלִשְׁמֹר מִצְוַת אַבְרָהָם. וְצִוָּה אֶת בָּנָיו שֶׁלֹּא יַפְסִיקוּ מִבְּנֵי לֵוִי מְמֻנֶּה אַחַר מְמֻנֶּה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִשָּׁכַח הַלִּמּוּד. וְהָיָה הַדָּבָר הוֹלֵךְ וּמִתְגַּבֵּר בִּבְנֵי יַעֲקֹב וּבַנִּלְוִים עֲלֵיהֶם וְנַעֲשֵׂית בָּעוֹלָם אֻמָּה שֶׁהִיא יוֹדַעַת אֶת ה'. עַד שֶׁאָרְכוּ הַיָּמִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִצְרַיִם וְחָזְרוּ לִלְמֹד מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן וְלַעֲבֹד כּוֹכָבִים כְּמוֹתָן חוּץ מִשֵּׁבֶט לֵוִי שֶׁעָמַד בְּמִצְוַת אָבוֹת. וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא עָבַד שֵׁבֶט לֵוִי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. וְכִמְעַט קָט הָיָה הָעִקָּר שֶׁשָּׁתַל אַבְרָהָם נֶעֱקָר וְחוֹזְרִין בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב לְטָעוּת הָעוֹלָם וּתְעִיּוֹתָן. וּמֵאַהֲבַת ה' אוֹתָנוּ וּמִשָּׁמְרוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁבוּעָה לְאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ עָשָׂה משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ רַבָּן שֶׁל כָּל הַנְּבִיאִים וּשְׁלָחוֹ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְנַבֵּא משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ וּבָחַר ה' יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנַחֲלָה הִכְתִּירָן בְּמִצְוֹת וְהוֹדִיעָם דֶּרֶךְ עֲבוֹדָתוֹ וּמַה יִּהְיֶה מִשְׁפַּט עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְכָל הַטּוֹעִים אַחֲרֶיהָ: After this mighty man¹In several places - e.g., Bava Batra 15a and Rosh HaShanah 11a - our Sages referred to Abraham with this expression. was weaned,²Nedarim 32a states: "Abraham was three when he recognized his Creator." Although the Rambam states that it was not until Abraham was forty that he gained true awareness of God, his process of search began at age three. he began to explore and think. Though he was a child, he began to think [incessantly] throughout the day and night, wondering: How is it possible for the sphere to continue to revolve without having anyone controlling it?³Note the Midrash HaGadol (Parashat Lech Lecha), which explains that Abraham questioned: Why should we bow down to idols, gods that we ourselves make? We should bow to the earth, for it produces crops that sustain us.
Therefore, he began to worship the earth. Then he saw that the earth needs rain, and began to worship the sky. Later, he saw that the most brilliant creation in the sky was the sun, and began to worship it. Afterwards, when the sun set and the moon rose, he began to worship the moon. When the sun rose the next morning, he did not know what to do. He did not see which was stronger: the sun or the moon. So Abraham continued in a quandary, questioning who was the true God. Who is causing it to revolve? Surely, it does not cause itself to revolve.⁴Interestingly, in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:5, the Rambam uses the same concept as a proof for the existence of God.
He had no teacher, nor was there anyone to inform him. -Bereshit Rabbah 61:1 elaborates on the lack of instruction that was available to Abraham.
Note the Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh, who question why Noach, Shem, and Ever (all of whom were alive at this time) did not try to nullify the worship of idols and why they did not instruct Abraham. They offer two explanations. The first is that they were afraid and hid from the idolaters. (See Midrash Tehillim 118. Note, however, teachings which state that these righteous men also protested the worship of false gods, Tanna Devei Eliyahu Rabba, Chapters 20 and 25.)
Alternatively, Shem and Ever lived in the land of Canaan, while Abraham lived in Babylon. The question remains, however, why did Abraham not seek out these righteous men (Kinat Eliyahu).
He had no teacher, nor was there anyone to inform him. Rather, he was mired in Ur Kasdim among the foolish idolaters. His father, mother, and all the people [around him] were idol worshipers,⁵Indeed, our Sages relate that his father had a shop where idols were sold. and he would worship with them.⁶See Bereshit Rabbah 39:8, which states that Abraham was always worried that God would not absolve him from his sin of worshiping idols. [However,] his heart was exploring and [gaining] understanding.
Ultimately, he appreciated the way of truth⁷an awareness of God and understood the path of righteousness⁸an ethical approach to behavior, which reflected his spiritual awareness through his accurate comprehension. He realized that there was one God who controlled the sphere, that He created everything, and that there is no other God among all the other entities.⁹These are the fundamental principles of the Jewish faith, as explained in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:1-6. He knew that the entire world was making a mistake. What caused them to err was their service of the stars and images, which made them lose awareness of the truth.¹⁰Their worship of idols dulled their sensitivity to spirituality to the point where they lost all awareness of God.
Abraham was forty years old when he became aware of his Creator.¹¹Note Bereshit Rabbah 64:4, which mentions two opinions regarding when Abraham became aware of God: one when he was three and one when he was forty eight. It is possible that the Rambam's text of the Midrash read "forty" instead of "forty eight."
As explained above, the opinions are not necessarily contradictory. Abraham's process of inquiry could have begun at age three, while at forty he gained greater understanding, and at forty eight, he achieved an even higher level of awareness.
Avot 5:21 states: "At forty, one achieves understanding." By associating Abraham's apreciation of the Creator with this age, the Rambam implies that this awareness can come as a product of our own thought and meditation. When he recognized and knew Him,¹²Bereshit Rabbah 39:1 explains Abraham's process of thought with a parable. A person saw a brightly lit palace. He wondered: Could this palace exist without an owner? Immediately, the owner revealed himself to him. Similarly, Abraham wondered: Is it possible for the world to exist without one who controls? Immediately, God revealed himself to him. he began to formulate replies to the inhabitants of Ur Kasdim and debate with them, telling them that they were not following a proper path.¹³by serving the stars and idols.
He broke their idols and began to teach the people that it is fitting to serve only the God of the world.¹⁴Our Sages relate that after breaking his father's idols, he put a stick in the hands of the largest idol. When his father asked him why he destroyed the idols, he replied that he didn't do it; the idol holding the stick did.
His father curtly dismissed his reply: "That idol is only metal. It cannot do anything," he roared at his son.
"If so, why do you worship it?" Abraham replied. To Him [alone] is it fitting to bow down, sacrifice, and offer libations, so that the people of future [generations] would recognize Him.¹⁵The Rambam's words imply that the value of offering sacrifices at this time (before the Torah commanded that they be offered) was not as the acts of service of God, but in the educational effect they had on the people and the awareness of God they inspired. [Conversely,] it is fitting to destroy and break all the images, lest all the people err concerning them, like those people who thought that there are no other gods besides these [images].
When he overcame them through the strength of his arguments, the king¹⁶Nimrod (Pesachim 118a)
desired to kill him - by tossing him into a burning furnace.
He was [saved through] a miracle - Interestingly, when the Rambam lists the ten trials that Abraham endured in his Commentary on the Mishnah, Avot 5:3, he does not mention this episode at all.
and left for Charan. - See Genesis 11:31. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam mentions Abraham's exile from his native land as the first of his ten trials.
[There,] - he did not encounter any of the formal opposition he had faced in Babylonia and
he began to call in a loud voice to all people and inform them that there is one God in the entire world. He would go out and call to the people, gathering them in city after city and country after country - On the phrase, Genesis 12:5, "the people they had gathered in Charan," Bereshit Rabbah 39:21 comments, "These are the converts they made. Abraham would convert the men and Sarah would convert the women."
until he came to the land of Canaan - See Genesis, Chapter 12, which describes Abraham's journeys within the land of Canaan.
proclaiming [God's existence the entire time] - as [Genesis 21:33] states: "And He called there in the name of the Lord, the eternal God." - Sotah 10a states: "Do not read 'And he called.' Read 'And he had others call' - i.e., Abraham motivated others to become aware of God and call out to Him.
When the people would gather around him and ask him about his statements, he would explain [them] to each one of them according to their understanding, until they turned to the path of truth. Ultimately, thousands and myriads gathered around him. These are the men of the house of Abraham. - The Rabbis question the fate of all these people. We do not find any mention of the perpetuation of their faith in God. Perhaps the cultural influences of the surrounding environment were too powerful. If the children of Israel themselves turned to idol worship after two generations in Egypt, could any more be expected from these individuals?
He planted in their hearts this great fundamental principle, composed texts about it - Most commentaries point to Avodah Zarah 14b, which relates that Abraham composed a four-hundred-chapter text against the worship of false gods. Kinat Eliyahu notes that here, the Rambam is not referring to the negation of idol worship, but to the propagation of the faith in one God. Therefore, he suggests that the reference is to the Kabbalistic tradition (Zohar, Vol. II, 275b) that Sefer Yetzirah was composed by Abraham. (See also Kiryat Melech.)
and taught it to Isaac, his son. - Note Genesis 18:19: "I have known him that he will command his children and household after him, and they will keep the way of God...."
Isaac also taught others and turned [their hearts to God]. He also taught Jacob - Jacob also studied under Shem and Ever (See Rashi, Genesis 25:27, Bereishit Rabbah 25:16).
and appointed him as a teacher - i.e., he and not Esau would convey the spiritual heritage of Abraham.
[Jacob] taught others and turned [the hearts] of all those who gathered around him [to God]. He also taught all of his children. - In contrast to Abraham and Isaac, all of Jacob's children were righteous. (See Hilchot Kri'at Shema 1:4.)
He selected Levi and appointed him as the leader. - The Torah itself does not mention Jacob's selection of Levi as a leader. A number of sources in the oral tradition (Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 39; Shemot Rabbah 15:27), however, reveal this concept.
He established him [as the head of] the academy - The Midrash Tanchuma (Vayigash) interprets Genesis 46:28: "And Jacob sent Judah before him," to mean that he charged him with founding a yeshiva. Similarly, Yoma 28b states that this Talmudic academy continued throughout the Egyptian exile.
to teach them the way of God - Note Hilchot De'ot 1:7, which explains that the expression, "the way of God," refers to ethics, emulating the qualities of spirit which God has revealed.
and observe the mitzvot of Abraham. - In this context, note the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Melachim 9:1. After relating the seven universal laws given to Noach and his descendants, the Rambam states:
In addition to these, Abraham was commanded regarding circumcision. He instituted the morning prayer. Isaac separated tithes and added another prayer service towards evening. Jacob added the prohibition against eating the gid hanasheh, the "displaced nerve," and instituted the evening prayers.
[Jacob] commanded his sons that the leadership should not depart from the descendants of Levi - Thus, the mantle of leadership passed to Kehat and then to Amram, Moses' father.
so that the teachings would not be forgotten. This concept proceeded and gathered strength among the descendants of Jacob and those who collected around them, until there became a nation within the world which knew God. - This describes the initial period of the Jews' stay in Egypt, when they prospered both spiritually and materially.
When the Jews extended their stay in Egypt - The entire period of the Egyptian exile lasted 210 years. As long as Jacob's sons were living, the Jews preserved the heritage of their fathers and were treated with honor by the Egyptians.
The last of Jacob's sons to die was Levi. After his death, the spiritual level of the Jews descended. Levi lived 127 years. He was 44 when he entered Egypt. Thus, this spiritual descent occurred 83 years after the Jews entered Egypt.
however, they learned from the [Egyptians'] deeds and began worshiping the stars as they did - When the Jews adopted Egyptian values - as a reflection of their spiritual state - they were enslaved by the Egyptians.
with the exception of the tribe of Levi, who clung to the mitzvot of the patriarchs - the tribe of Levi never served false gods. - The tribe of Levi was also the only tribe which perpetuated the mitzvah of circumcision (Sifre, Berachah). As a result of their spiritual fortitude, the tribe of Levi was never enslaved.
Within a short time, the fundamental principle that Abraham had planted would have been uprooted and the descendants of Jacob would have returned to the errors of the world and their crookedness. - Our Sages relate that, in the Egyptian exile, the Jews had descended to the forty-ninth degree of impurity. Had they descended another level, it would have been impossible for us ever to be redeemed.
Because of God's love for us, and to uphold the oath He made to Abraham, our patriarch - This is a reference to Deuteronomy 7:7-8: "It is not because of your greatness over all the other nations that God desired you and chose you..., but it was because of God's love for you and because He kept the oath He swore to your fathers."
He brought forth Moses, our teacher - Rav David Arameah notes that the word עשה, rendered as "brought forth," literally means "made." He explains that from Moses' birth, God granted him the potential to develop unique spiritual awareness. Although the Rambam also accepts this concept (see the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapter 32), it is more likely that he chose this expression as a reference to I Samuel 12:6 (Rav Kapach).
the master of all prophets - See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 7:6, where the Rambam elaborates on the advantages Moses had over all the other prophets. Indeed, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Introduction to Chapter 10 of Sanhedrin), he includes belief in the supremacy of Moses' prophecy as the seventh of his Thirteen Principles of Faith.
and sent him [to redeem the Jews] - after 117 years of idol worship and slavery.
After Moses, our teacher, prophesied, and God chose Israel as His inheritance, He crowned them with mitzvot and informed them of the path to serve Him - by
[teaching them] - the Torah which reveals
the judgement prescribed for idol-worship and all those who stray after it - as will be explained in the subsequent chapters. The Rambam's elaboration on the negative experience of our people in Egypt and the giving of the Torah has the following implication. Although man can appreciate the futile nature of idol worship and the greatness of God with his own intellect, because man is fallable, it is necessary to have these principles institutionalized in an objective, unchanging religious code (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 20). desired to kill him. He was [saved through] a miracle and left for Charan. [There,] he began to call in a loud voice to all people and inform them that there is one God in the entire world and it is proper to serve Him. He would go out and call to the people, gathering them in city after city and country after country, until he came to the land of Canaan - proclaiming [God's existence the entire time] - as [Genesis 21:33] states: "And He called there in the name of the Lord, the eternal God."
When the people would gather around him and ask him about his statements, he would explain [them] to each one of them according to their understanding, until they turned to the path of truth. Ultimately, thousands and myriads gathered around him. These are the men of the house of Abraham.
He planted in their hearts this great fundamental principle, composed texts about it, and taught it to Isaac, his son. Isaac also taught others and turned [their hearts to God]. He also taught Jacob and appointed him as a teacher.
[Jacob] taught others and turned [the hearts] of all those who gathered around him [to God]. He also taught all of his children. He selected Levi and appointed him as the leader. He established him [as the head of] the academy to teach them the way of God and observe the mitzvot of Abraham.
[Jacob] commanded his sons that the leadership should not depart from the descendants of Levi, so that the teachings would not be forgotten. This concept proceeded and gathered strength among the descendants of Jacob and those who collected around them, until there became a nation within the world which knew God.
When the Jews extended their stay in Egypt, however, they learned from the [Egyptians'] deeds and began worshiping the stars as they did, with the exception of the tribe of Levi, who clung to the mitzvot of the patriarchs - the tribe of Levi never served false gods.
Within a short time, the fundamental principle that Abraham had planted would have been uprooted, and the descendants of Jacob would have returned to the errors of the world and their crookedness. Because of God's love for us, and to uphold the oath He made to Abraham, our patriarch, He brought forth Moses, our teacher, the master of all prophets, and sent him [to redeem the Jews]. After Moses, our teacher, prophesied, and God chose Israel as His inheritance, He crowned them with mitzvot and informed them of the path to serve Him, [teaching them] the judgement prescribed for idol worshiper and all those who stray after it.

עִקַּר הַצִּוּוּי בַּעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲבֹד אֶחָד מִכָּל הַבְּרוּאִים לֹא מַלְאָךְ וְלֹא גַּלְגַּל וְלֹא כּוֹכָב וְלֹא אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעָה הַיְסוֹדוֹת וְלֹא אֶחָד מִכָּל הַנִּבְרָאִים מֵהֶן. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָעוֹבֵד יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁה' הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים וְהוּא עוֹבֵד הַנִּבְרָא הַזֶּה עַל דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁעָבַד אֱנוֹשׁ וְאַנְשֵׁי דּוֹרוֹ תְּחִלָּה הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים. וְעִנְיָן זֶה הוּא שֶׁהִזְהִירָה תּוֹרָה עָלָיו וְאָמְרָה (דברים ד יט) "וּפֶן תִּשָּׂא עֵינֶיךָ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וְרָאִיתָ אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ" וְגוֹ' (דברים ד יט) "אֲשֶׁר חָלַק ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֹתָם לְכָל הָעַמִּים". כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא תָּשׁוּט בְּעֵין לִבְּךָ וְתִרְאֶה שֶׁאֵלּוּ הֵן הַמַּנְהִיגִים אֶת הָעוֹלָם וְהֵם שֶׁחָלַק ה' אוֹתָם לְכָל הָעוֹלָם לִהְיוֹת חַיִּים וְהוֹוִים וְאֵינָם נִפְסָדִים כְּמִנְהָגוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם וְתֹאמַר שֶׁרָאוּי לְהִשְׁתַּחֲווֹת לָהֶם וּלְעָבְדָן. וּבָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה צִוָּה וְאָמַר (דברים יא טז) "הִשָּׁמְרוּ לָכֶם פֶּן יִפְתֶּה לְבַבְכֶם". כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא תִּטְּעוּ בְּהִרְהוּר הַלֵּב לַעֲבֹד אֵלּוּ לִהְיוֹת סַרְסוּר בֵּינֵיכֶם וּבֵין הַבּוֹרֵא: The essence of the commandment [forbidding] the worship of false gods is not to serve any of the creations,¹The Rambam counts the prohibition against worshiping false gods as the first of the 365 negative commandments. In these halachot, he does not mention this prohibition in the manner in which he usually introduces one of the 613 mitzvot in this text, because he introduced this prohibition previously in the Mishneh Torah, mentioning it in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:6. The inclusion of this mitzvah in those halachot is appropriate, because it is one of the foundations of our faith. not an angel, a sphere, or a star,²See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, Chapters 2 and 3, for a description of these creations. none of the four fundamental elements,³fire, wind, water, and earth. The Rambam describes the existence and function of these four fundamental elements in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, Chapters 3 and 4. nor any entity created from them.⁴All the creations of our physical world are created from a combination of these four elements. Even if the person worshiping knows that ‘ה is the [true] God and serves the creation in the manner in which Enosh and the people of his generation worshiped [the stars] originally,⁵as the Rambam mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 1. he is considered to be an idol worshiper.⁶and is subject to the punishments mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.
The Torah warns us about this, saying [Deuteronomy 4:19]: "Lest you lift your eyes heavenward and see the sun, the moon, and the stars... [and bow down and worship them], the entities which God apportioned to all the nations." - As mentioned in the previous chapter, there are some authorities who, using this verse as a proof-text, do not prohibit gentiles from worshiping false gods with this intent. However, all authorities agree that Jews may not worship in this manner.
The Torah warns us about this, saying [Deuteronomy 4:19]: "Lest you lift your eyes heavenward and see the sun, the moon, and the stars... [and bow down and worship them], the entities which God apportioned to all the nations." This⁷should not be interpreted simply as forbidding us to gaze at the celestial beings (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 10), but rather implies that you might inquire with "the eye of the heart" and it might appear to you that these entities control the world,⁸because they do perform essential functions within the natural order having been apportioned by God to all the nations to be alive,⁹See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 3:9, which states that the stars and the spheres are alive and are conscious of God's existence. to exist, and not to cease existence, as is the pattern of [the other creations with] the world.¹⁰In the first chapters of the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, and briefly in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 4:3, the Rambam explains that all the creations of this world are combinations of different elements and will therefore ultimately return to their initial elemental state. In contrast, the existence of the stars and the spheres remains constant. Therefore, you might say that it is worthy to bow down to them and worship them.¹¹to "honor those who God honors," as mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 1, or to derive benefit from serving them, as mentioned in Halachah 2 of that chapter.
For this reason, [Deuteronomy 11:16] commands: "Be very careful - The words "Be very careful" imply a prohibition stemming from the Torah. In Halachah 3, the Rambam describes the prohibition involved in harboring such thoughts.
For this reason, [Deuteronomy 11:16] commands: "Be very careful that your heart not be tempted [to go astray and worship other gods]." This implies that the thoughts of your heart should not lead you astray to worship these and make them an intermediary between you and the Creator.¹²Note the fifth of the Rambam's Thirteen Principles of Faith (Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, Chapter 10):
The fifth fundamental principle is that it is fit to serve God alone... and not the entities who are below Him: the angels, the stars, the spheres, or the fundamental elements.This is because they all perform their functions because of their inherent nature. They have no control or choice, but merely [fulfill] God's will.We should not make them intermediaries to reach Him through them, but rather direct all our thoughts to Him, paying no attention to anything else. This is the... prohibition against worshiping false gods.

סְפָרִים רַבִּים חִבְּרוּ עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים בַּעֲבוֹדָתָהּ הֵיאַךְ עִקַּר עֲבוֹדָתָהּ וּמַה מַּעֲשֶׂיהָ וּמִשְׁפָּטֶיהָ. צִוָּנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁלֹּא לִקְרוֹת בְּאוֹתָן הַסְּפָרִים כְּלָל וְלֹא נְהַרְהֵר בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּדָבָר מִדְּבָרֶיהָ. וַאֲפִלּוּ לְהִסְתַּכֵּל בִּדְמוּת הַצּוּרָה אָסוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט ד) "אַל תִּפְנוּ אֶל הָאֱלִילִים". וּבָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה נֶאֱמַר (דברים יב ל) "וּפֶן תִּדְרשׁ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם לֵאמֹר אֵיכָה יַעַבְדוּ", שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁאַל עַל דֶּרֶךְ עֲבוֹדָתָהּ הֵיאַךְ הִיא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה עוֹבְדָהּ, שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה גּוֹרֵם לְהִפָּנוֹת אַחֲרֶיהָ וְלַעֲשׂוֹת כְּמָה שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְאֶעֱשֶׂה כֵּן גַּם אָנִי: The worshipers of false gods have composed many texts concerning their service, [describing] what is the essence of their service, what practices are involved, and what are its statutes.¹The commentaries have also included studying other books by pagans and nonbelievers in this prohibition. The Holy One, blessed be He, has commanded us not to read those books at all,²See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avot 2:17), which states that one may study "the ideas of the gentiles in order to reply to them." Indeed, from the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapters 29 and 30, it appears that the Rambam himself undertook such study. (The Rabbis have, nevertheless, suggested that such study be limited only to certain individuals who have received permission from a rabbinic authority to concern themselves with these issues.)
Note also Chapter 3, Halachah 2, and Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:1, which state that judges must be somewhat familiar with the rites of the pagans in order to judge cases dealing with such questions. There is no source, however, where the Rambam explicitly mentions that one may study about idol worship for this reason. (See Shabbat 75a and Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 179:29.) nor to think about them or any matters involved with them.³The Zohar, Vol. I, 100a, mentions this prohibition together with its rationale, "lest your heart be tempted to this service."
It is even forbidden to look at the image of an idol,⁴Note Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 10) and Tosafot (Shabbat 149a), which explain that this prohibition applies only to statues worshiped as idols, in contrast to Rashi (Shabbat, ibid.), who explains that it refers even to statues erected for decorative purposes. as [Leviticus 19:4] states: "Do not turn to the idols."⁵Note the comments of the Sifra on this verse, "If you turn to them, you will make them gods." In this regard, [Deuteronomy 12:30] states:⁶speaking to the Jews as they prepare to enter Eretz Yisrael: "[Be careful]... lest you seek to find out about their gods, saying, 'How did they serve them.'⁷See Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 10), which defines this prohibition as "analytical thought and study concerning the fantasies and empty thoughts of the founders [of idol worship] - i.e., that spiritual nurture can be drawn down from this star in this manner, it is proper to burn incense to this star in this manner...." This prohibits inquiring about the nature of their service even if you, yourself, do not⁸have an intent to serve them.⁹These enquiries are prohibited because This matter will ultimately cause you to turn to [the false god] and worship it as they do, as [the above verse continues]: "so that I will do the same."¹⁰Here, abstract intellectual curiosity is forbidden. The Rambam operates under the premise that there is nothing positive that can be learned from idol worshipers, and there is a danger that one will be attracted to their lifestyle. Therefore, since there is "nothing to gain and everything to lose," inquiry about such subjects is forbidden.

וְכָל הַלָּאוִין הָאֵלּוּ בְּעִנְיָן אֶחָד הֵן וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִפְנֶה אַחַר עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְכָל הַנִּפְנֶה אַחֲרֶיהָ בְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה. וְלֹא עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים בִּלְבַד הוּא שֶׁאָסוּר לְהִפָּנוֹת אַחֲרֶיהָ בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה אֶלָּא כָּל מַחֲשָׁבָה שֶׁהוּא גּוֹרֵם לוֹ לָאָדָם לַעֲקֹר עִקָּר מֵעִקְּרֵי הַתּוֹרָה מֻזְהָרִין אָנוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַעֲלוֹתָהּ עַל לִבֵּנוּ וְלֹא נַסִּיחַ דַּעְתֵּנוּ לְכָךְ וְנַחְשֹׁב וְנִמָּשֵׁךְ אַחַר הִרְהוּרֵי הַלֵּב. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קְצָרָה וְלֹא כָּל הַדֵּעוֹת יְכוֹלִין לְהַשִּׂיג הָאֱמֶת עַל בֻּרְיוֹ. וְאִם יִמָּשֵׁךְ כָּל אָדָם אַחַר מַחְשְׁבוֹת לִבּוֹ נִמְצָא מַחֲרִיב אֶת הָעוֹלָם לְפִי קֹצֶר דַּעְתּוֹ. כֵּיצַד. פְּעָמִים יָתוּר אַחַר עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וּפְעָמִים יַחְשֹׁב בְּיִחוּד הַבּוֹרֵא שֶׁמָּא הוּא שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ. מַה לְּמַעְלָה וּמַה לְּמַטָּה מַה לְּפָנִים וּמַה לְּאָחוֹר. וּפְעָמִים בַּנְּבוּאָה שֶׁמָּא הִיא אֱמֶת שֶׁמָּא הִיא אֵינָהּ. וּפְעָמִים בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁמָּא הִיא מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם שֶׁמָּא אֵינָהּ. וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ הַמִּדּוֹת שֶׁיָּדִין בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע הָאֱמֶת עַל בֻּרְיוֹ וְנִמְצָא יוֹצֵא לִידֵי מִינוּת. וְעַל עִנְיָן זֶה הִזְהִירָה תּוֹרָה וְנֶאֱמַר בָּהּ (במדבר טו לט) "וְלֹא תָתֻרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם זֹנִים". כְּלוֹמַר לֹא יִמָּשֵׁךְ כָּל אֶחָד מִכֶּם אַחַר דַּעְתּוֹ הַקְּצָרָה וִידַמֶּה שֶׁמַּחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ מַשֶּׂגֶת הָאֱמֶת. כָּךְ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים (גמרא ברכות יב ב) "אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם זוֹ מִינוּת" וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם זוֹ זְנוּת. וְלָאו זֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא גּוֹרֵם לָאָדָם לְטָרְדוֹ מִן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא אֵין בּוֹ מַלְקוֹת: All these prohibitions¹mentioned in this and the above two halachot. have one common thrust: that one should not pay attention to idol worship.²Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 10) andSefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 213) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Whoever performs a deed³e.g., in his curiosity, uncovers an image to see what it looks like (Maharshal) or performs a ceremonial act of idol worship merely as practice (Mishneh Kessef).
The Rambam's statements here are used as support to negate the opinion of the Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 345), which states that lashes are never given for the violation of a prohibition that can be transgressed without performing a deed, even when one violates it by committing a deed. that reflects his concern with [idol worship] receives lashes [as punishment].⁴Punishment is administered only for the violation of prohibitions by actual deeds. In this instance, the prohibition can be violated by thought alone - in which case no punishment is administered. There are, however, also instances when deed - and thus punishment - is also involved.
Eruvin 17b notes that even though the proof-text for this prohibition mentions the word אל rather than לא, it is no different from other Torah prohibitions, and its violation is also punished by lashes.
The worship of false gods is not the only subject to which we are forbidden to pay attention;⁵Note the Introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot (Shoresh 9), which states that there are mitzvot of thought, of feeling, of speech, and of deed. rather, we are warned not to consider any thought which will cause us to uproot one of the fundamentals of the Torah. We should not turn our minds to these matters, think about them, or be drawn after the thoughts of our hearts.⁶Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 47) defines this mitzvah as follows:
We are forbidden to be freethinking [to the extent that] we accept principles which run contrary to those of the Torah. Rather, we should structure our thoughts, setting for them guidelines, those being the mitzvot of the Torah.The Rambam explains the reason for these prohibitions:
In general, people have limited powers of understanding, and not all minds are capable of appreciating the truth in its fullness.⁷See also Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 2:12, 4:11,13, where the Rambam mentions the restrictions placed on the study of deeper spiritual concepts lest one err in his conception. [Accordingly,] were a person to follow the thoughts of his heart, it is possible that he would destroy the world because of his limited understanding.⁸There are several ways to understand the expression used by the Rambam: "destroy the world." On the most obvious level, it is a figurative expression, not to be interpreted literally. On a deeper level, it can be seen as a reference to his statements in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:4 that a person should always "see himself and the entire world as equally balanced between merit and sin. If he commits one sin, he tips his balance and that of the entire world to guilt and brings on destruction."
Today, we can appreciate the Rambam's words in a very literal sense. Society as a whole is plagued by irrational acts of violence. and on a global level it is possible for utter destruction to be brought about if a few individuals act irresponsibly.
What is implied? There are times when a person will stray after star worship,⁹and consider it beneficial and¹⁰there are times when he will wonder about God's oneness: Perhaps He is one, perhaps He is not?¹¹In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Introduction to the Tenth Chapter of Sanhedrin), the Rambam lists the oneness of God as the second of his Thirteen Principles of Faith. See also Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:7, 2:10. [He might also wonder:] What exists above, [in the heavenly realms]? What exists below [them]? What was before time? What will be after time?¹²Our translation is based on Rashi's interpretation of Chaggigah, ibid. Similarly, [one might wonder about] prophecy: Perhaps it is true, perhaps it is not?¹³In Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 7:1, the Rambam states: "It is [one] of the foundations of [our] faith that God communicates by prophecy with man." Similarly, the Rambam lists the concept of prophecy as the sixth of his Thirteen Principles of Faith. And [one may also wonder]¹⁴Chaggigah 11b states: "It would have been better for someone who considers the [following] four matters never to have been created." The passage continues by mentioning the four questions quoted by the Rambam here. about the Torah: Perhaps it emanates from God, perhaps it does not?¹⁵As the eighth of his Thirteen Principles of Faith, the Rambam states: "The Torah which we have was given by Moses our teacher... and emanates - in its entirety - from the Almighty." He explains that this also applies to the oral law. He reiterates this concept in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah.
Since he may not know the guidelines with which to evaluate [ideas that will lead him] to the truth in its fullness, he may come to heresy.¹⁶The Rambam's statements should be interpreted, not as a restriction of one's thinking processes, but rather a call to structure our thoughts according to the guidelines provided for us by the Torah.
In this context, it is worthy to refer to Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 4:13:
I maintain that it is not proper for a person to stroll in the Pardes (study Torah's mystic secrets) unless he has filled his belly with bread and meat. "Bread and meat" refer to the knowledge of what is permitted and what is forbidden, and similar matters concerning other mitzvot. Even though the Sages referred to these as "a small matter" - since our Sages said: "'A great matter,' this is Ma'aseh Merkavah. 'A small matter,' this is the debates of Abbaye and Ravva" - nevertheless, it is fitting for them to be given precedence, because they settle a person's mind.
Thus, the Rambam teaches that a person should not embark on the study of deep spiritual questions until he has gained the intellectual maturity which comes from Torah study. Even after a person gains such maturity, there is no need for him to concern himself with the study of idol worship because there is no value which he can derive from such study.
The Torah has warned about this matter, saying [Numbers 15:39]: "Do not stray after your hearts and eyes, which have led you to immorality" - Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 47) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 387) counts this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
i.e., each one of you should not follow his limited powers of understanding and think that he has comprehended the truth. - Instead, he should follow a structured pattern for intellectual growth and development prescribed by a Torah master.
Our Sages - Sifre, Sh'lach. (See also Berachot 12b.)
[interpreted this warning]: "After your hearts," this refers to heresy - For a more precise definition of the term minut, see Halachah 5 and the commentary.
"after your eyes," this refers to immorality. - In Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.), the Rambam explains:
Their intent in mentioning "immorality" was the pursuit of pleasure and physical desire, [to the extent that] one's mind is constantly preoccupied with such thoughts.
This prohibition - though [severe,] causing a person to be prevented [from attaining a portion] in the world to come - In Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8, the Rambam includes among the categories of those who have no portion in the world to come: "nonbelievers, heretics, those who deny the Torah,... those who cause the many to sin, and those who depart from the ways of the community." Following the whims of one's heart can lead to the transgression of these prohibitions.
is not punishable by lashes - because it does not involve a deed.
There is some difficulty with the Rambam's statements. The transgression of both of the prohibitions mentioned in this halachah involves thought and can also involve deed. Just as the commentaries suggested several deeds which violate the first prohibition, similar acts could be performed which violate the latter prohibition. The Rambam, however, appears to imply that there is no way that the latter prohibition could be transgressed in a manner warranting punishment. The Torah has warned about this matter, saying [Numbers 15:39]: "Do not stray after your hearts and eyes, which have led you to immorality" - i.e., each one of you should not follow his limited powers of understanding and think that he has comprehended the truth.
Our Sages [interpreted this warning]: "After your hearts," this refers to heresy; "after your eyes," this refers to immorality. This prohibition - though [severe,] causing a person to be prevented [from attaining a portion] in the world to come - is not punishable by lashes.

מִצְוַת עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים כְּנֶגֶד הַמִּצְוֹת כֻּלָּן הִיא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טו כב) "וְכִי תִשְׁגּוּ וְלֹא תַעֲשׂוּ אֵת כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת" וְגוֹ' וּמִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁבַּעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁכָּל הַמּוֹדֶה בַּעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים כּוֹפֵר בְּכָל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ וּבְכָל הַנְּבִיאִים וּבְכָל מַה שֶּׁנִּצְטַוּוּ הַנְּבִיאִים מֵאָדָם וְעַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טו כג) "מִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' וָהָלְאָה לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם". וְכָל הַכּוֹפֵר בַּעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים מוֹדֶה בְּכָל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ וּבְכָל הַנְּבִיאִים וּבְכָל מַה שֶּׁנִּצְטַוּוּ הַנְּבִיאִים מֵאָדָם וְעַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְהוּא עִקַּר כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת כֻּלָּן: The commandment [forbidding] the worship of false gods is equivalent to all the mitzvot, as [implied by Numbers 15:22]: "Lest you err and not perform all the mitzvot...." The oral tradition teaches that the verse refers to the worship of false gods. Thus, we learn that anyone who acknowledges a false god denies the entire Torah in its totality, all the works of the prophets, and everything that has been commanded to the prophets from Adam, [the first man,] until eternity, as [Numbers 15:23] continues: "...from the day God issued His commandments and afterwards, for your future generations."
[Conversely,] anyone who denies the worship of false gods acknowledges the entire Torah in its totality, all the works of the prophets, and everything that has been commanded to the prophets from Adam, [the first man,] until eternity. [This acknowledgement] is fundamental to all of the mitzvot.

יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁעָבַד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הֲרֵי הוּא כְּעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים לְכָל דְּבָרָיו וְאֵינוֹ כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁעוֹבֵר עֲבֵרָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ סְקִילָה. מוּמָר לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הֲרֵי הוּא מוּמָר לְכָל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ. וְכֵן הָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִים מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָן כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְדָבָר מִן הַדְּבָרִים וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִים אוֹתָם בִּתְשׁוּבָה לְעוֹלָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ב יט) "כָּל בָּאֶיהָ לֹא יְשׁוּבוּן וְלֹא יַשִּׂיגוּ אָרְחוֹת חַיִּים". וְהָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִים הֵם הַתָּרִים אַחַר מַחְשְׁבוֹת לִבָּם בְּסִכְלוּת דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ עַד שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ עוֹבְרִים עַל גּוּפֵי תּוֹרָה לְהַכְעִיס בִּשְׁאָט נֶפֶשׁ בְּיָד רָמָה וְאוֹמְרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּזֶה עָוֹן. וְאָסוּר לְסַפֵּר עִמָּהֶן וּלְהָשִׁיב עֲלֵיהֶן תְּשׁוּבָה כְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ה ח) "וְאַל תִּקְרַב אֶל פֶּתַח בֵּיתָהּ". וּמַחֲשָׁבָה שֶׁל אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים: A Jew who serves false gods is considered like a gentile in all regards and is not comparable to a Jew who violated another transgression punishable by being stoned to death. An apostate who worships false gods is considered to be an apostate with regard to the entire Torah.
Similarly, Jewish minnim are not considered to be Jews with regard to any matter. Their repentance should never be accepted, as [implied by Proverbs 2:19]: "None that go to her repent, nor will they regain the paths of life."
The minnim are those who stray after the thoughts of their hearts, concerning themselves with the foolish matters mentioned above, until they ultimately transgress against the body of Torah [law] arrogantly, with scorn, with the intent of provoking God's anger, and yet say that there is no sin involved.
It is forbidden to talk to them or to reply to them at all, as [Proverbs 5:8] states: "Do not come close to her door." [It can be assumed that] a min's thoughts are concerned with false gods.

כָּל הַמּוֹדֶה בַּעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהִיא אֱמֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עֲבָדָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה מְחָרֵף וּמְגַדֵּף אֶת הַשֵּׁם הַנִּכְבָּד וְהַנּוֹרָא. וְאֶחָד הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְאֶחָד הַמְגַדֵּף אֶת ה' שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טו ל) "וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה בְּיָד רָמָה מִן הָאֶזְרָח וּמִן הַגֵּר אֶת ה' הוּא מְגַדֵּף". לְפִיכָךְ תּוֹלִין עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁתּוֹלִין אֶת הַמְגַדֵּף וּשְׁנֵיהֶם נִסְקָלִין. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה כָּלַלְתִּי דִּין הַמְגַדֵּף בְּהִלְכוֹת עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם כּוֹפְרִים בָּעִקָּר הֵם: Whoever accepts a false god as true, even when he does not actually worship it, disgraces and blasphemes [God's] glorious and awesome name. This applies both to one who worships false gods and to one who curses God's name [as is obvious from Numbers 15:30]: "If a person commits [an act of idolatry] highhandedly, whether he be a native born [Jew] or a convert, he is blaspheming God."
Therefore, a person who worships false gods is to be hanged, just as one who blasphemes against God is hanged. Both are executed by being stoned to death. Therefore, I have included the laws applying to a blasphemer in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim. Both deny the fundamental principle [of Jewish faith].

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן דִּינֵי הַמְגַדֵּף. אֵין הַמְגַדֵּף חַיָּב סְקִילָה עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ אֶת הַשֵּׁם הַמְיֻחָד שֶׁל אַרְבַּע אוֹתִיּוֹת שֶׁהוּא אָלֶ"ף דָּלֶ"ת נוּ"ן יוּ"ד וִיבָרֵךְ אוֹתוֹ בְּשֵׁם מִן הַשֵּׁמוֹת שֶׁאֵינָם נִמְחָקִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד טז) "וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם ה'", עַל הַשֵּׁם הַמְיֻחָד חַיָּב סְקִילָה וְעַל שְׁאָר הַכִּנּוּיִים בְּאַזְהָרָה. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁמְּפָרֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל שֵׁם יוּ"ד הֵ"א וָא"ו הֵ"א וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁעַל שְׁנֵיהֶם הוּא נִסְקָל: These are the laws which govern a blasphemer: A blasphemer is not liable to be stoned to death until he states God's unique name, which possesses four letters: א-ד-נ-י, and curses that name with one of the names of God which are forbidden to be erased, as [Leviticus 24:16] states: "One who blasphemes God's name...."
One is obligated to be stoned to death for blaspheming God's unique name. [Should he blaspheme] the other names for God, he [transgresses] a prohibition.
There are those who state that one is liable [for execution] only when one blasphemes the name י-ה-ו-ה. I, however, maintain that one should be stoned to death in both instances.

אַזְהָרָה שֶׁל מְגַדֵּף מִנַּיִן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב כז) "אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל". בְּכָל יוֹם וָיוֹם בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הָעֵדִים בְּכִנּוּיִים יַכֶּה יוֹסִי אֶת יוֹסִי. נִגְמַר הַדִּין מוֹצִיאִין אֶת כָּל אָדָם לַחוּץ וְשׁוֹאֲלִים אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּעֵדִים וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֱמֹר מַה שֶּׁשָּׁמַעְתָּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ וְהוּא אוֹמֵר וְהַדַּיָּנִים עוֹמְדִים עַל רַגְלֵיהֶם וְקוֹרְעִין וְלֹא מְאַחִין. וְהָעֵד הַשֵּׁנִי אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי כְּמוֹתוֹ שָׁמַעְתִּי. וְאִם הָיוּ עֵדִים רַבִּים צָרִיךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן לוֹמַר כָּזֶה שָׁמַעְתִּי: Which verse serves as the warning prohibiting blasphemy? [Exodus 22:27]: "Do not curse God."
[The procedure for the trial of a blasphemer is as follows:] Each day [when] the witnesses are questioned, [they use] other terms for God's name, [stating,] "May Yosse strike Yosse." At the conclusion of the judgment, all bystanders are removed [from the courtroom]. The judges question the witness of greatest stature and tell him, "Tell us what you heard explicitly." He relates [the curse]. The judges stand upright and rend their garments. They may not mend them [afterwards].
The second witness states: "I also heard as he did." If there are many witnesses, they must all say, "I heard the same."

מְגַדֵּף שֶׁחָזַר בּוֹ בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּבּוּר אֵינוֹ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁגִּדֵּף בְּעֵדִים נִסְקָל. מִי שֶׁגִּדֵּף אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּשֵׁם עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים קַנָּאִים פּוֹגְעִים בּוֹ וְהוֹרְגִים אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם לֹא הֲרָגוּהוּ קַנָּאִים וּבָא לְבֵית דִּין אֵינוֹ נִסְקָל עַד שֶׁיְּבָרֵךְ בְּשֵׁם מִן הַשֵּׁמוֹת הַמְיֻחָדִים: [The fact that] a blasphemer retracts his statements in the midst of speaking is of no consequence. Rather, once he utters blasphemy in the presence of witnesses, he is [liable for execution by] stoning.
Should a person curse God's name with the name of a false god, the zealous may strike him and slay him. If the zealous do not slay him and he is brought to court, he is not [condemned to] be stoned. [That punishment is administered] only when one curses God's name with another one of His unique names.

כָּל הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ בִּרְכַּת הַשֵּׁם חַיָּב לִקְרֹעַ וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל בִּרְכַּת הַכִּנּוּיִין חַיָּב לִקְרֹעַ וְהוּא שֶׁיִּשְׁמָעֶנָּה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אֶחָד הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ מִפִּי הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ חַיָּב לִקְרֹעַ. אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ מִפִּי הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לִקְרֹעַ. וְלֹא קָרְעוּ אֶלְיָקִים וְשֶׁבְנָא אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרַבְשָׁקֵה הָיָה יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּמָר. כָּל הָעֵדִים וְהַדַּיָּנִים סוֹמְכִים אֶת יְדֵיהֶם אֶחָד אֶחָד עַל רֹאשׁ הַמְגַדֵּף וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ דָּמְךָ בְּרֹאשְׁךָ שֶׁאַתָּה גָּרַמְתָּ לְךָ. וְאֵין בְּכָל הֲרוּגֵי בֵּית דִּין מִי שֶׁסּוֹמְכִים עָלָיו אֶלָּא מְגַדֵּף בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְסָמְכוּ כָל הַשֹּׁמְעִים אֶת יְדֵיהֶם: Whoever hears the blasphemy of God's name is obligated to rend his garments. Even [when one hears] the blasphemy of other terms used to describe God, one is obligated to rend his garments.
The above applies when one hears [the blasphemy] from a fellow Jew. [In that instance,] both one who hears the actual blasphemy and one who hears it from the witnesses is obligated to rend his garments. In contrast, one who hears a gentile [blaspheme God's name] is not obligated to rend his garments. Elyakim and Shevna rent their garments [as described in Isaiah 36:22] only because Ravshakeh was an apostate Jew.
[Before his execution,] all the witnesses and the judges place their hands on the head of the blasphemer and tell him: "You are responsible for your death. You brought it upon yourself." Only a blasphemer - and none of the other offenders executed by the court - has [the judges and witnesses] place their hands upon his head, as [Leviticus 24:14] states: "And all those who hear shall place their hands on his head."

כָּל הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים בִּרְצוֹנוֹ בְּזָדוֹן חַיָּב כָּרֵת וְאִם הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה נִסְקָל. וְאִם עָבַד בִּשְׁגָגָה מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה: Whoever serves false gods willingly,¹i.e., if he is forced to worship false gods by another person, he is not held responsible for his act. It is nevertheless forbidden to consent to such pressure. One is obligated to sacrifice one's life rather than consent to such worship (Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:2,4). as a conscious act of defiance,²as opposed to someone who worships inadvertently.
[The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1510) notes that the Rambam uses the expression "willingly, as a conscious act of defiance" with regard to the violation of the prohibitions against idolatry, the Sabbath laws (Hilchot Shabbat 1:1), and the laws of Yom Kippur (Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor 1:1). With regard to all other transgressions punishable by כרת, he states merely: "as a conscious act of defiance."
The Radbaz explains that it is possible that the Rambam mentioned the concept of "willingly" with regard to these three transgressions because they are the first cases of כרת mentioned in the Mishneh Torah. Furthermore, they are transgressions which people at large would consider most severe. After mentioning the concept on these three occasions, the Rambam does not think further repetition is necessary.] is liable for³Mo'ed Katan 28a relates that a person liable for כרת would die before reaching the age of fifty. The Rambam (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1) emphasizes that being "cut off in this world" is not the sum total of Divine retribution for such a transgression. Rather, the person's soul is also cut off and prevented from reaching the world to come. כרת. If witnesses who warned him⁴See Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:1-2. were present,⁵when he committed the offense and later testified in court, he is [punished by being] stoned to death.⁶as mentioned above, Chapter 2, Halachah 6. If he served [such gods] inadvertently,⁷He performed an act of idol worship without realizing that it was forbidden, or was not aware of the punishment involved (Hilchot Shegagot 2:2). he must bring a fixed sin offering.⁸Though the sin offering brought to atone for idol worship differs from that brought to atone for other sins - see Numbers 15:27-31; Hilchot Shegagot 1:4 - the Rambam uses this term to differentiate it from a קרבן עולה ויורד - a guilt offering which differs depending on the financial status of the person bringing it.

עֲבוֹדוֹת הַרְבֵּה קָבְעוּ עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים לְכָל צֶלֶם וְצֶלֶם וּלְכָל צוּרָה וְצוּרָה וַעֲבוֹדַת זֶה אֵינָהּ כַּעֲבוֹדַת זֶה כְּגוֹן פְּעוֹר שֶׁעֲבוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁפּוֹעֵר אָדָם עַצְמוֹ לוֹ וּמַרְקוּלִיס שֶׁעֲבוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁיִּזְרֹק לוֹ אֲבָנִים אוֹ יְסַקֵּל מִלְּפָנָיו אֲבָנִים וְהַרְבֵּה עֲבוֹדוֹת כְּגוֹן אֵלּוּ תִּקְּנוּ לִשְׁאָר צְלָמִים. לְפִיכָךְ הַפּוֹעֵר עַצְמוֹ לְמַרְקוּלִיס אוֹ שֶׁזָּרַק אֶבֶן לִפְעוֹר פָּטוּר עַד שֶׁיַּעֲבֹד אוֹתוֹ דֶּרֶךְ עֲבוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב ל) "אֵיכָה יַעַבְדוּ הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם וְאֶעֱשֶׂה כֵּן גַּם אָנִי". וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה הָעִנְיָן צְרִיכִין בֵּית דִּין לֵידַע דַּרְכֵי הָעֲבוֹדוֹת, שֶׁאֵין סוֹקְלִין עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים עַד שֶׁיֵּדְעוּ שֶׁזּוֹ הִיא דֶּרֶךְ עֲבוֹדָתוֹ: The gentiles established various different services for each particular idol and image. These services do not [necessarily] resemble each other. For example, Pe'or¹See Numbers, Chapter 25, which describes the Jews' worship of this image. See also Sanhedrin 61a. is served by defecating before it. Marculis²The Aruch identifies the Hebrew Marculis with the Greek god, Mercury. He notes that the form used to represent the deity and its manner of service resemble that found in Roman and Greek sources. See Tosafot, Sanhedrin 64a for a different interpretation. is served by throwing stones at it³Note Halachah 5. or clearing stones away from it.⁴Clearing away these stones leaves more room for others to throw. Hence, such an act is also considered to be service of the deity (Sanhedrin 64a).
Similarly, other services were instituted for other idols. One who defecates before Marculis or throws a stone at Pe'or is free of liability - for he did not serve the god in the service required for it, or through one of the four services which were accepted as modes of worship for all gods, as explained in the following halachah. One might think that a person would be held liable for serving one of these gods in the manner used to serve the other, since they are both served in an unbecoming manner. Sanhedrin 61a teaches us that, nevertheless, one is not liable. Similarly, other services were instituted for other idols.
One who defecates before Marculis or throws a stone at Pe'or is free of liability until he serves it according to the accepted modes of service, as [implied by Deuteronomy 12:30]: "[Lest one inquire about their gods, saying,] 'How did these nations serve their gods? I will do the⁵The Torah's inclusion of such a question implies that this knowledge is significant. A person who does not worship an idol in the accepted mode of service is not liable (Sanhedrin, ibid.).
For this reason, a court must know the types of worship [practiced by gentiles] - Note Chapter 2, Halachah 2, which forbids the study of idolatrous practices. Apparently, license to do so is granted the sages to allow them to gain the knowledge mentioned in this halachah. (See Sanhedrin 68a.) same.'"
For this reason, a court must know the types of worship [practiced by gentiles], because an idolater is stoned to death only when we know that [he has worshiped a false god] in the mode in which it is traditionally worshiped.⁶Thus, were the court not cognizant of the different modes of idol worship, they could not administer the appropriate punishment.

וְאַזְהָרָה שֶׁל עֲבוֹדוֹת אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הוּא מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב (שמות כ ה) "וְלֹא תָעָבְדֵם". בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּשְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת חוּץ מִמִּשְׁתַּחֲוְה וְזוֹבֵחַ וּמַקְטִיר וּמְנַסֵּךְ. אֲבָל הָעוֹבֵד בְּאַחַת מֵעֲבוֹדוֹת אֵלּוּ לְאֶחָד מִכָּל מִינֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים חַיָּב וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ עֲבוֹדָתוֹ בְּכָךְ. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁנִּסֵּךְ לִפְעוֹר אוֹ שֶׁזָּבַח לְמַרְקוּלִיס חַיָּב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב יט) "זֹבֵחַ לָאֱלֹהִים יָחֳרָם בִּלְתִּי לַה' לְבַדּוֹ". זְבִיחָה בִּכְלַל עֲבוֹדָה הָיְתָה וְלָמָּה יָצָאת לוֹמַר לְךָ מַה זְּבִיחָה מְיֻחֶדֶת שֶׁעוֹבְדִין בָּהּ לַשֵּׁם וְחַיָּב הַזּוֹבֵחַ לְאֵל אַחֵר סְקִילָה עָלֶיהָ בֵּין הָיְתָה דֶּרֶךְ עֲבוֹדָתוֹ בִּזְבִיחָה אוֹ אֵינָהּ בִּזְבִיחָה. אַף כָּל עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁהִיא מְיֻחֶדֶת לַשֵּׁם אִם עָבַד בָּהּ לְאֵל אַחֵר בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה דֶּרֶךְ עֲבוֹדָתוֹ בְּכָךְ בֵּין שֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּכָךְ חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ. לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר (שמות לד יד) "לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְאֵל אַחֵר" לְחַיֵּב עַל הַהִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה אֲפִלּוּ אֵין דֶּרֶךְ עֲבוֹדָתוֹ בְּכָךְ. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִמְקַטֵּר וּמְנַסֵּךְ. וְזוֹרֵק וּמְנַסֵּךְ אֶחָד הוּא: The warning [forbidding] such worship and the like is the verse [Exodus 20:5] which states: "Do not serve¹Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 6) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 29) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. It, to be distinguished from the prohibition against the belief in false gods (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 1), involves the performance of deeds of worship in service of false gods.
The Ramban (Hasagot L'Sefer HaMitzvot) considers the two prohibitions as one negative mitzvah. The Rambam's view, however, is justified by other authorities. them."
When does the above²that one is liable only when performing services with which a deity is worshiped apply? with regard to services other than bowing,³See Chapter 6, Halachah 8, which states that this means bowing one's face to the ground, whether bending, kneeling, or totally prostrate on the ground. slaughtering [an animal], bringing a burnt offering, and offering a libation.⁴Since these four modes of worship are accepted services of the true God, using them to serve false gods is absolutely forbidden (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 6). Therefore, A person who performs one of these four services to any one of the types of false gods is liable, even though this is not its accepted mode of service.⁵In Halachah 6, the Rambam discusses paying reverence or showing affection to false gods through services with which the true God is not worshiped.
How is this exemplified? A person who offers a libation to Pe'or or slaughters [an animal] to Marculis⁶despite the fact that they are served in other ways, as explained in the previous halachah is liable, as [implied by Exodus 22:19]: "Whoever slaughters [an animal] to any deity⁷Note Rashi, Sanhedrin 60b, who explains that since the verse does not state, "Whoever worships a deity through sacrifice," we can conclude that the sacrifice of an animal is sufficient for one to be held liable, even when this is not the accepted mode of service. other than God alone must be condemned to⁸He is stoned to death. death."
[Liability for performing the other services⁹pouring a libation and bringing a burnt offering, which are not explicitly forbidden by the Torah. can be derived as follows:] Slaughter was included in the general category of services [forbidden to be performed to false gods]. Why was it mentioned explicitly? To teach [the following]:¹⁰This represents an example of the eighth of Rabbi Yishmael's thirteen principles of Biblical exegesis:
When a specific case is first included in a general category and then, singled out to instruct us regarding a new concept, we assume that it has been singled out not only to teach us concerning its own case, but rather for that new idea to be applied with regard to the totality of the general category. Slaughter is distinct as one of the services of God,¹¹i.e., it is a particular case included in a general category and one who slaughters to false gods is liable to be executed by stoning.¹²This is the new concept for which the Torah singled out this service to teach us. Following the above rule, we conclude Similarly, with regard to any service which is distinct as one of the services of God, if a person performs it in worship of other gods, he is liable.¹³for execution.
For [a similar reason, Exodus 34:14] states: "Do not bow down to another god,"¹⁴Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 5) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 28) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This prohibition also includes performing the other three services mentioned above.
In this instance as well, the Ramban (Hasagot L'Sefer HaMitzvot) considers this prohibition to be included within the first negative mitzvah, the prohibition against believing in false gods. The Rambam's view, however, is justified by other authorities. to teach that one is liable for bowing down [to another god] even when this is not its accepted mode of service.¹⁵Bowing down is not considered to be one of the Temple services. Hence, it - as opposed to bringing a burnt offering or pouring a libation - cannot be derived from the prohibition against sacrificing, and requires a unique verse of its own. The same applies to one who brings a burnt offering or pours a libation. Sprinkling [blood] is considered the same as pouring a libation.

סָפַת לָהּ צוֹאָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּסֵּךְ לָהּ עֲבִיט שֶׁל מֵי רַגְלַיִם חַיָּב. שָׁחַט לָהּ חָגָב פָּטוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה עֲבוֹדָתָהּ בְּכָךְ. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט לָהּ בְּהֵמָה מְחֻסֶּרֶת אֵיבָר פָּטוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה דֶּרֶךְ עֲבוֹדָתָהּ בְּכָךְ. עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁעוֹבְדִין אוֹתָהּ בְּמַקֵּל. שָׁבַר מַקֵּל בְּפָנֶיהָ חַיָּב וְנֶאֱסֶרֶת. זָרַק מַקֵּל בְּפָנֶיהָ חַיָּב וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱסֶרֶת. שֶׁאֵין זְרִיקַת הַמַּקֵּל כְּעֵין זְרִיקַת הַדָּם שֶׁהֲרֵי הַמַּקֵּל כְּמוֹ שֵׁהוּא וְהַדָּם מִתְפַּזֵּר. הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו אֶחָד מִכָּל מִינֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים בֵּאלוֹהַּ חַיָּב סְקִילָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הִגְבִּיהַּ לְבֵנָה וְאָמַר לָהּ אֵלִי אַתָּה וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּדִבּוּר זֶה חַיָּב. וַאֲפִלּוּ חָזַר בּוֹ בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּבּוּר וְאָמַר אֵין זֶה אֵלִי אֵין חֲזָרָתוֹ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא נִסְקָל: [Even if] one pours feces before it or pours a libation of urine from a chamber pot before it, one is liable.¹These are considered as libations (Avodah Zarah 50b), for which one is held liable even if this is not the mode in which the deity is worshiped. If one slaughters a locust before it, one is not liable,²for there is no concept of ritual slaughter with regard to locusts. TheOr Sameach holds one liable when one sacrifices a locust on an altar before a false deity. unless this is the mode of service of that deity.³in which instance one would be held liable, based on the principles stated in Halachah 2. Similarly, if one slaughters an animal lacking a limb for it,⁴Note Avodah Zarah 51a which states that this leniency only applies to the slaughter of any animal lacking a limb. In contrast, one is held liable for the slaughter of an animal with a disqualifying physical blemish. one is not liable,⁵because even the gentiles do not offer sacrifices of such animals
The Ra'avad holds one liable even for the slaughter of such an animal or of a locust, explaining that although the Rambam's decision reflects certain opinions mentioned in the Talmud, the final decision is that one is held liable. He explains that such forms of slaughter are much closer to the concept of the slaughter for sacrifice than the offering of feces or urine are to the service of libation. unless this is the manner of service of this deity.⁶as explained above.
[The following rules apply when] a false god is worshiped by [beating with] a staff - Note the Ra'avad, who emphasizes that the following rules apply although the service of this deity does not involve breaking or throwing a staff
[The following rules apply when] a false god is worshiped by [beating with] a staff [before it]:⁷This interpretation is also followed by theShulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 139:3. If one breaks a staff before it,⁸since this activity resembles the slaughter of an animal one is liable [for the worship of false gods],⁹To justify the seeming difficulty in the Rambam's decisions mentioned by the Ra'avad (see above), the Lechem Mishneh explains that since staffs figure in the worship of this deity, an act that resembles slaughter that is performed with a staff is significant. In contrast, animals lacking limbs and locusts are never used in the service of such deities; hence, their slaughter is of no consequence.
[Note, however, the Ramah, who explains that one is liable only when the deity is worshiped by breaking the stick.] and [the deity] is forbidden.¹⁰to be used, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 4. This interpretation depends on the female construction of the word נאסרת. Other authorities quote the word in a masculine form and interpret it as a reference to the staff. Since it was used in the worship of a false god, it is forbidden, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 2. If one threw a staff before it,¹¹since this activity resembles pouring a libation before an idol one is held liable, but [the deity]¹²or the staff is not forbidden,¹³This decision makes the Rambam's line of reasoning difficult to follow. If throwing the staff is not comparable to sprinkling blood, why is one held liable for it? Accordingly, some commentaries have explained that this decision applies only when the deity is worshiped by throwing staffs. The Pri Chadash, however, differentiates between the liability of the worshiper (for which a sprinkling that spatters is not required) and the prohibition of the worship of the deity (for which it is). because throwing a staff is not considered equivalent to sprinkling blood. The staff remains as it was,¹⁴a single whole entity while the blood spatters [in different directions].¹⁵Since the reason that these services are considered significant even though the deity is not normally worshiped in this manner is that these services were performed in the Temple, the analogy must be complete. Thus, the entity poured or thrown before the deity must spatter, as blood spatters when sprinkled on the altar (Avodah Zarah, ibid.).
A person who accepts any one of the various false gods - which already exist
A person who accepts any one of the various false gods as a deity¹⁶even though he does not perform a deed of worship
is liable for [execution by] stoning. - The Rambam mentions that one is liable for stoning specifically. Generally, the term "liable" means "liable to bring a sacrifice." In this instance, however, a person who makes such a statement inadvertently is not obligated to bring a sacrifice. A sacrifice is only brought when one performs a deed in violation of the Torah's command (Hilchot Shegagot 1:2).
Even one who - creates a new false god for himself (Lechem Mishneh)
lifted up a brick - The Lechem Mishneh explains that this expression is merely a figure of speech. There is no need to perform a deed - lifting up the brick - for one to be held liable.
and said, "You are my god," or the like, is liable. - When two people do not witness this declaration, the death penalty may not be administered by the court. The person is, however, liable for karet (premature death at the hand of God) if he made his statements intentionally.
Even if he retracted his statements in the midst of speaking - As explained above (Chapter 2, Halachah 9), this term has a specific meaning, the amount of time it takes to say שלום עליך רבי.
and said, "This is not my God," his retraction is not significant - Although a retraction made in this amount of time is normally considered significant, different rules apply with regard to the acceptance of false gods. It is assumed that a person would never make such a statement unless he were fully aware of its ramifications.
and he should be stoned [to death].
is liable for [execution by] stoning. Even one who lifted up a brick and said, "You are my god," or the like, is liable. Even if he retracted his statements in the midst of speaking and said, "This is not my God," his retraction is not significant and he should be stoned [to death].

הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים כְּדַרְכָּהּ וַאֲפִלּוּ עָשָׂה דֶּרֶךְ בִּזָּיוֹן חַיָּב. כֵּיצַד. הַפּוֹעֵר עַצְמוֹ לִפְעוֹר כְּדֵי לְבַזּוֹתוֹ אוֹ זָרַק אֶבֶן לְמַרְקוּלִיס כְּדֵי לְבַזּוֹתוֹ הוֹאִיל וַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ בְּכָךְ חַיָּב. וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ: Anyone who serves a false god through its accepted mode of service - even if he does so in a derisive manner¹i.e., both the act he performs and his intent in performing it is to abuse the false deity - is liable.²for a sacrifice, as will be explained. This is an extension of the principle stated in Halachah 2. What is implied? When a person defecates before Pe'or to repudiate it, or throws a stone at Marculis to repudiate it³Sanhedrin 64a relates that one of the Sages of the Talmud actually made such an error and threw a rock at a shrine of Marculis, with the intent of destroying it. When the matter was brought before his colleagues, they informed him of his mistake. - since this is the manner of serving them - the person is liable and must bring a sacrifice [to atone for] his inadvertent transgression.⁴Although he consciously performed an act which is considered to be worship of these gods, since his intent was not to serve them, he is not considered to be one who willfully serves idols. Hence, he is not punished by the court for his deed, nor is he obligated for karet by God. Since he, nevertheless, did perform an act of worship to these gods, he must bring a sacrifice for atonement.
The above represents the Kessef Mishneh's interpretation of this halachah. Many other authorities (see Tosafot, Sanhedrin 64a) disagree, and maintain that even in such circumstances, one could be held liable for capital punishment. For example, two witnesses who knew the law were present and warned the person against repudiating the idol in this fashion. He ignored their warning and performed the derisive act of worship. Although his intent was not to serve the deity, since he performed an act of worship despite the warning he was given, he is liable for execution.
Rav Kapach brings support for the Kessef Mishneh's view from the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:6. There, the Rambam discusses a similar situation and states that a person who performs such service "is liable for a sin offering." In the original texts of that commentary, the Rambam stated that the person "is liable." The addition of the words "for a sin offering" appear to indicate that he is liable only for an offering, but not for punishment by the court. Note also Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:4, where the Rambam states that a person who unknowingly worships a false god is not liable for his deeds.

הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים מֵאַהֲבָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָשַׁק בְּצוּרָה זוֹ מִפְּנֵי מְלַאכְתָּהּ שֶׁהָיְתָה נָאָה בְּיוֹתֵר. אוֹ שֶׁעֲבָדָהּ מִיִּרְאָתוֹ לָהּ שֶׁמָּא תָּרֵעַ לוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֵן מְדַמִּים עוֹבְדֶיהָ שֶׁהִיא מֵיטִיבָה וּמְרֵעָה. אִם קִבְּלָהּ עָלָיו בֵּאלוֹהַּ חַיָּב סְקִילָה וְאִם עֲבָדָהּ דֶּרֶךְ עֲבוֹדָתָהּ אוֹ בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע עֲבוֹדוֹת מֵאַהֲבָה אוֹ מִיִּרְאָה פָּטוּר. הַמְגַפֵּף עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְהַמְנַשֵּׁק לָהּ וְהַמְכַבֵּד וְהַמְרַבֵּץ לְפָנֶיהָ וְהַמַּרְחִיץ לָהּ וְהַסָּךְ וְהַמַּלְבִּישׁ וְהַמַּנְעִיל וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּדִבְרֵי כָּבוֹד הָאֵלּוּ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְלֹא תָעָבְדֵם, וּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ בִּכְלַל עֲבוֹדָה הֵן. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן בְּפֵרוּשׁ. וְאִם הָיְתָה דֶּרֶךְ עֲבוֹדָתָהּ בְּאֶחָד מִכָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ וַעֲשָׂהוּ לְעָבְדָהּ חַיָּב: [The following rules apply when] a person serves a false deity out of love¹i.e., he desires an image because its service is very attractive - The commentaries note that the Rambam interprets "out of love" differently from "out of fear." "Out of love" refers to a love for the image and its service, while "out of fear" means fear of what the deity can do to the person.
Rav Kapach explains the Rambam's position, justifying the need for such a difference in interpretation. Most idolaters do not worship their images out of a genuine conviction that they are the true god, but rather for the benefit they feel this service will bring them. Therefore, were a person to serve an idol with this intent in mind, the Rambam would hold him liable. In contrast, were he to serve out of fear, he is not considered to be acting on his own volition, and hence is not held responsible. - i.e., he desires an image because its service is very attractive - or when one serves it out of his fear of it²i.e., he fears that it will harm him - as the [idol] worshipers fear [their deities as sources of] benefit and harm: - See Chapter 1, Halachot 1-2. - i.e., he fears that it will harm him - as the [idol] worshipers fear [their deities as sources of] benefit and harm: If he accepts it as a god,³and serves it as an act of worship he is liable to be stoned to death.⁴as stated in Halachah 1. If he serves it out of love or fear⁵without accepting it as a god - even though he served it through its accepted mode of service⁶as mentioned in Halachah 2 or through one of the four services [mentioned above],⁷in Halachah 3, he is not held liable.⁸since he did not accept the deity as a god.
Although the Rambam's opinion is questioned by many other authorities, it is based on an established tradition of Talmudic interpretation. This halachah is based on Sanhedrin 61b. That passage is also quoted in Shabbat 72b. Rabbenu Chanan'el, one of the foremost commentators in the generations between the Geonim and the Rambam, interprets the latter passage using the same concepts _ and almost the same phraseology _ as employed by the Rambam here.
The Ra'avad and others challenge the Rambam's interpretation and explain that "out of love" and "out of fear" mean: motivated by the love or fear of the person who tries to influence one to worship the false deity. The Rambam cannot accept this interpretation, because in Hilchot Yesodei Torah 5:4, he states that a person who is forced to serve false gods is not held liable for his deeds (Kessef Mishneh).
The fact that a person is not held liable for such service does not at all minimize the seriousness of the prohibition involved. In no way is one allowed to serve false gods for such reasons. Even with regard to the Ra'avad's interpretation "out of fear" - i.e., out of fear of a person - the Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 150:3) prohibits performing any act that might be interpreted as idol worship - e.g., bowing to a ruler who is wearing an image.
One who embraces a false deity, kisses it, sweeps before it, mops before it, washes it, anoints it, dresses it, places shoes upon it, or performs any similar act of deference violates a negative commandment, as [implied by Exodus 20:5]: "Do not serve them."⁹This commandment is described in Halachot 2 and 3. Such acts are also "service." The offender is, nevertheless, not¹⁰executed, as is one who worships a false deity, nor is he liable for lashes, because [these services] are not [mentioned] explicitly [by the Torah].¹¹The Kessef Mishneh explains that punishment is not given because this prohibition is a לאו שבכללות - i.e., it includes many different forbidden acts. Lashes are not given for the violation of such a prohibition, as stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3.
To explain: The prohibition, "Do not serve them," is twofold in nature. It prohibits the worship of a false deity through its accepted modes of service, as stated in Halachah 2. This is a sin punishable by death. The same prohibition also forbids these expressions of affection or reverence. These deeds are not, however, punishable by death because they are not acts of worship.
Since violation of this prohibition incurs a penalty of execution, it is not associated with the punishment of lashes. Since, in essence, this prohibition is not associated with lashes, even the many transgressions of a lesser nature which are also included within this prohibition are also not punishable in this manner (Rav Kapach).
If one of the above services¹²kissing, and the like was the accepted mode of worship [of a particular deity] and a person performed this service as an act of worship,¹³and not merely as an expression of emotion. The Lechem Mishneh questions the addition of the words "as an act of worship," noting that in Halachah 5, the Rambam holds one liable for performing the service with which Pe'or or Marculis was worshiped, even though one's intent was to repudiate the idols. Thus, it appears that once a person performs a service which is the accepted mode of worship, his intent is no longer significant.
The Pri Chadash resolves this difficulty, explaining that the extent of liability is different. In the previous halachah, the offender was liable for a sin offering alone, while here, he is liable [for execution].¹⁴as stated in Halachah 2.

יָשַׁב לוֹ קוֹץ בְּרַגְלוֹ לִפְנֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים לֹא יָשֹׁחַ וְיִטְּלֶנּוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהּ. נִתְפַּזְּרוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת בְּפָנֶיהָ לֹא יָשֹׁחַ וְיִטְּלֵם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהּ אֶלָּא יֵשֵׁב וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִטּל: If a splinter becomes stuck in a person's foot before an idol, he should not bend down to remove it, because it appears that he is bowing down to the idol.¹Avodah Zarah 12a states that if the person turns his back or side to the idol, his bowing would not be considered to be an act of deference, and no prohibition is involved.²Even if no other people are present, this and the following prohibitions apply. Any prohibition that was instituted because of the impression which might be created (מראית עין) is forbidden even in a person's most private chambers.
If money belonging to a person becomes scattered before an idol, he should not bow down and pick it up, because it appears that he is bowing down to the idol.³From the commentaries' discussion of this law, it appears that if the person does bow down, he is not held liable for his actions. Kin'at Eliyahu questions the difference between this decision and Halachah 5, which holds a person who throws a stone to Marculis with the intent to repudiate it liable for a sin offering. He resolves that difficulty, explaining that in Halachah 5, the person intended to throw the stone at the idol. Since that act constitutes worship of this deity, he is held liable. In contrast, in our halachah the person did not bow down to the idol at all. The only reason the bowing is prohibited is that a mistaken impression might be created. Instead, he should sit down, and then pick it up.⁴Avodah Zarah (ibid.) mentions a third prohibition, that a person should not bow down to drink from a spring that flows in front of an idol. The Kessef Mishneh notes that Rav Yitzchak Alfasi also omits this law, and explains that it was not contained in their text of the Talmud. (This is somewhat unlikely, since it is found in Rabbenu Chanan'el's text of Avodah Zarah.)
The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1389) states that this law is included in the law mentioned in the following halachah. Hence, it is not mentioned explicitly by the Rambam.

פַּרְצוּפוֹת הַמְקַלְּחוֹת מַיִם בִּפְנֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים לֹא יַנִּיחַ פִּיו עַל פִּיהֶם וְיִשְׁתֶּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כִּמְנַשֵּׁק לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים: A person should not place his mouth over the mouths of statues which serve as fountains that are located before false deities in order to drink, because it appears that he is kissing the false deity.¹This prohibition is also mentioned in Avodah Zarah (ibid.).
The commentaries have noted a slight difficulty in the Talmud's (and thus, the Rambam's) phraseology. The opening clause describes the statues as merely "located before false deities," while from the latter clause it appears that the statue itself is the false deity.

הָעוֹשֶׂה עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים לְעַצְמוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עֲשָׂאָהּ בְּיָדוֹ וְלֹא עֲבָדָהּ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כ ד) "לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה לְךָ פֶסֶל וְכָל תְּמוּנָה". וְכֵן הָעוֹשֶׂה עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים בְּיָדוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים אֲפִלּוּ עֲשָׂאָהּ לְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט ד) "וֵאלֹהֵי מַסֵּכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם". לְפִיכָךְ הָעוֹשֶׂה עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים בְּיָדוֹ לְעַצְמוֹ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם: A person who has a false god made for himself¹even though he, himself, did not actually fashion it - i.e., he commissioned another person to make the idol for him. - even though he, himself, did not actually fashion it, nor worship it²i.e., although he commissioned the fashioning of the idol, he did not worship it or explicitly accept it as a god. Accordingly, he is not punished by execution as above. He is, nevertheless, considered to have violated a prohibition, and - is [punished by] lashing,³The Lechem Mishneh questions this statement, noting that lashes are not given for a transgression which does not involve a deed, and that speech is not ordinarily considered to be a deed. He explains that since the craftsman fashions the idol on behalf of the person who commissioned him, he is considered to be the latter's agent. Therefore, the one who commissioned him is held responsible for his deed.
The commentaries question this explanation, noting that - with the exception of a few specific instances - the Torah never holds a person who commissions another individual to commit a sin liable, since the person who actually committed the sin is responsible for his actions. Also, the Rambam's phraseology here implies that one is held liable regardless whether the craftsman is a Jew or gentile, and a gentile is never given the halachic status of an agent.
The following are among the resolutions offered to this difficulty:a) A hired worker's actions - whether positive or negative - are always attributed to his employer (Machaneh Efrayim, Hilchot Shutafim 8).b) The verse prohibiting this act reveals that this is one of the few exceptions to the general rule mentioned above, and in this case, the person who commissioned the agent is held liable (Darchei HaMelech).c) Commenting on Hilchot Sechirut 13:2, the Mishneh LaMelech explains that if it is possible to violate a particular prohibition by committing a deed, one is punished by lashes even when one violates it without committing a deed. The same concept can be applied here (S'deh Chemed).d) The deed for which one is punished is not the command to make the idol, but rather its purchase or acquisition (Merchevat HaMishneh, Alfandari). as [Exodus 20:5] states: "Do not make for yourself an idol or any representation."
Similarly,⁴The grammatical structure of this verse allows it to be interpreted, "Do not have an idol... made for you." Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 2) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 27) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. a person who actually fashions a false god for others, even for⁵gentile idolaters,⁶even when he merely acts as a craftsman and does not worship or believe in the idol himself. is [punished by] lashing, as [Leviticus 19:4] states: "Do not make molten gods for yourselves."⁷Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 3) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 214) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Accordingly, a person who actually fashions a false god for himself⁸violates both of the above prohibitions. Therefore, he receives two measures of lashes.⁹See Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:4 for a description of how punishment is administered when a person is liable for more than one measure of lashes.

אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת צוּרוֹת לְנוֹי וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כ כ) "לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי" כְּלוֹמַר צוּרוֹת שֶׁל כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב שֶׁאֵינָם אֶלָּא לְנוֹי כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִטְּעוּ בָּהֶן הַטּוֹעִים וִידַמּוּ שֶׁהֵם לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. וְאֵין אִסּוּר לָצוּר לְנוֹי אֶלָּא צוּרַת הָאָדָם בִּלְבַד. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין מְצַיְּרִים לֹא בְּעֵץ וְלֹא בְּסִיד וְלֹא בְּאֶבֶן צוּרַת הָאָדָם. וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הַצּוּרָה בּוֹלֶטֶת כְּגוֹן הַצִּיּוּר וְהַכִּיּוּר שֶׁבַּטְּרַקְלִין וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְאִם צָר לוֹקֵה. אֲבָל אִם הָיִתָה הַצּוּרָה מֻשְׁקַעַת אוֹ צוּרָה שֶׁל סַמָּנִין כְּגוֹן הַצּוּרוֹת שֵׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַלּוּחוֹת וִהַטַּבְלִיּוֹת אוֹ צוּרוֹת שֶׁרוֹקְמִין בָּאָרִיג הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרוֹת: It is prohibited to make images for decorative purposes, even though they do not represent false deities,¹i.e., they were made as decorations and works of art, without any intent that they be worshiped. as [implied by Exodus 20:20]: "Do not make with Me [gods of silver and gods of gold]."²Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 4) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 39) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This refers even to images of gold and silver which are intended only for decorative purposes, lest others err and view them as deities.³The Rambam's statement sheds light on an interesting Rabbinic debate. The Sages of the Talmud often established "fences around the Torah" - i.e., safeguards to prevent the violation of Torah law. (See Avot 1:1.) There is a question whether the Torah itself instituted prohibitions for such a purpose - i.e., are there mitzvot that are instituted without a self-contained goal of their own, but merely to prevent the violation of other prohibitions? (See Lekach Tov 8.)
From the Rambam's statements here (see also Hilchot De'ot 7:8), it appears that he accepts such a premise. It appears that there is nothing intrinsically wrong in making statues per se. Nevertheless, since if such statues are made, the possibility exists that they may be worshiped, the Torah forbids us to make them.
It is forbidden to make decorative images of the human form alone.⁴As explained in the following halachah, this prohibition also applies to the sun, the moon, and other celestial beings. It is permitted to make an image of all creations of our world aside from man.
Avodah Zarah 43b derives this from the above verse. The Hebrew words translated as "Do not make with Me..." can also be rendered, "Do not make Me..." - i.e., do not make images in the human form, the form in which God has revealed himself (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 141:21). Therefore, it is forbidden to make human images with wood, cement, or stone.⁵or any other material. The Rambam mentioned these materials because they were commonly used in his time. This [prohibition] applies when the image is protruding⁶for example, images and sculptures made in a hallway and the like. - The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 141) states that we are forbidden to make only a complete human statue. A bust of a head alone or a statue which is lacking any one of the body's limbs is not forbidden. Though the Shulchan Aruch (141:7) does not accept this view, it is shared by the Ramah. - for example, images and sculptures made in a hallway and the like. A person who makes such an image is [liable for] lashes.⁷but not by execution, since these statues were not worshiped as idols.
In contrast, it is permitted to make human images that are engraved or painted⁸e.g., portraits, whether on wood or on stone - or that are part of a tapestry. - Though the images on a tapestry protrude slightly, since they are not a fully formed statue, there is no prohibition involved in making them. Note the contrast to the prohibition against making images of the celestial beings mentioned in the following halachah and commentary. - e.g., portraits, whether on wood or on stone - or that are part of a tapestry.

טַבַּעַת שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם שֶׁהוּא צוּרַת אָדָם אִם הָיְתָה הַצּוּרָה בּוֹלֶטֶת אָסוּר לְהַנִּיחָהּ וּמֻתָּר לַחְתֹּם בָּהּ. וְאִם הָיְתָה הַצּוּרָה שׁוֹקַעַת מֻתָּר לְהַנִּיחָהּ וְאָסוּר לַחְתֹּם בָּהּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַנָּחָתָם תַּעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ הַצּוּרָה בּוֹלֶטֶת. וְכֵן אָסוּר לָצוּר דְּמוּת חַמָּה וּלְבָנָה כּוֹכָבִים מַזָּלוֹת וּמַלְאָכִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כ כ) "לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי" (גמרא ראש השנה כד ב) "לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כִּדְמוּת שְׁמָשַׁי הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁין לְפָנַי בַּמָּרוֹם" וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל הַלּוּחַ. צוּרוֹת הַבְּהֵמוֹת וּשְׁאָר נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה חוּץ מִן הָאָדָם וְצוּרוֹת הָאִילָנוֹת וּדְשָׁאִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מֻתָּר לָצוּר אוֹתָם וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה הַצּוּרָה בּוֹלֶטֶת: [The following rules apply regarding] a signet ring¹In ancient times, it was customary for rulers to seal their documents with a signet ring. (See Esther 8:8.) Wax would be poured on the document and the ring pressed into the wax, producing an imprint which is a reverse image of that on the ring. which bears a human image: If the image is protruding, it is forbidden to wear it,²on one's finger, because a protruding image is forbidden, as stated in the previous halachah. but it is permitted to use it as a seal. If the image is an impression, it is permitted to wear it,³because there is not prohibition against such a human image but it is forbidden to use it as a seal,⁴for the human image it produces is sunken into the wax. because it will create an image which protrudes.⁵which is forbidden.
Similarly, it is forbidden to make an image of the sun, the moon, the stars, the constellations,⁶Our understanding of the Rambam's statements here can be enhanced by referring to his Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 3:3:
This does not mean a sphere which represents the sun or a hemisphere which represents the moon, but rather the images which the astrologers [i.e., those following Greek mythology] attribute to the stars,... e.g., Saturn is represented as an old dark man of venerable age, Venus is represented as a a beautiful maiden adorned with gold, and the sun is represented as a king with a diadem sitting in a chariot.[These are forbidden because] they are falsehoods and the nature of falsehood is that it will surely spread.
Rav Kapach supports this interpretation by quoting BeMidbar Rabbah 2:6, which describes the pennant of the tribe of Issachar as having a picture of the sun and the moon. Were these images forbidden, it would be unlikely that Moshe would have told the tribe to depict them. Even if the decree was instituted in the later generations, it is not probable that the Rabbis would forbid images that had previously been used for a Torah purpose.
The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 141:3) quotes the Rambam's opinion. The Turei Zahav 141:13 and the Siftei Cohen 141:8, however, note that the Rambam's statements which were quoted above (and the Ramah's statements) refer to a question whether one is allowed to keep images of the sun or moon that he finds. Here, the question is whether one is allowed to make such images oneself. From the discussion of the question in Avodah Zarah 43b, where the Sages question how Rabban Gamliel possessed forms of the moon, it would appear that there is a prohibition against making images of the sun and the moon themselves.
This interpretation, however, is also somewhat problematic, because the Rambam writes that there is no prohibition against making images of animals, and some of the constellations of the Zodiac are represented and referred to as animals. For example, one of the Zodiac constellations is a fish and Gittin 36a describes Rav as making a drawing of a fish. Another is a lion, which is one of the most popular images found in Jewish art. or the angels,⁷As the Rambam writes in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 2:3-5, the angels have no body or form. Hence, here, he is obviously referring to a form which a man has conceived of as appropriate for a particular angel. Alternatively, it could refer to the metaphoric imagery used by the prophets. as [implied by Exodus, ibid.]: "Do not make with Me [gods of silver...]"⁸The Rambam (quoting Avodah Zarah, ibid.) mentions the above Biblical proof-text in connection with this prohibition. It would appear, however, from the fact that making such images is not punishable by lashes, that the prohibition is only Rabbinic in nature. The reference to the verse must be understood as an asmachta (use of the Biblical verse as a support for a Rabbinic decree). - i.e., do not make images of⁹those who are "with Me" - i.e., My servants, those who serve before Me¹⁰This refers to the celestial beings and the angels. (See Chapter 1, Halachah 1, and Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 2:3.) on high. This [prohibition]¹¹is more severe than the prohibition against making human images, and applies even [to pictures] on tablets.¹²According to the Rambam's statements in his Commentary on the Mishnah, the difference between the prohibition against making these images and those of humans can be explained as follows: The prohibition against making human statues is Biblical in origin and is defined by the Torah itself. In contrast, the prohibition of making images of the celestial beings was a safeguard instituted by the Rabbis against Greek and Roman culture. It, therefore, applies to all images, whether pictures or statues, because both could influence people to stray from the Torah's ways.
According to the simple interpretation of the terms "sun" and "moon," the difference can be explained as follows: The sun and the moon, as we perceive them, appear against the background of the sky. Therefore, for a representation of them to be forbidden, it also need not protrude (Tosafot, 14Avodah Zarah, ibid.).
The images of animals and other living beings¹³with the exception of men - Avodah Zarah 42b also mentions a prohibition against making the image of a d'rakon which Rashi and others interpret as an animal similar to a serpent.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam describes this image as a fishlike man with fins and many scales, probably referring to the Greek god Neptune. - with the exception of men - and similarly, the images of trees, grasses, and the like may be fashioned. This¹⁴leniency applies even to images which protrude.¹⁵From these two halachot, particularly according to the Rambam's understanding as reflected in his Commentary on the Mishnah, we see that there is no conflict between Torah law and aesthetics. There are only two restrictions: realistic human statues (and according to some authorities, these must be complete, full-bodied statues) and depictions of pagan gods. Even according to the other opinions which forbid depictions of the sun, the moon, and the like, there is no prohibition against abstract portrayals of these entities. No other restrictions apply at all.
There is definitely a divergence between the approach to life that spawned much of the art forms of Western culture and a Torah lifestyle. Perhaps for that reason, many religious Jews have traditionally shunned participation in and patronage of the arts. In the present generation, however, a number of our Torah leaders have urged religious artists to dedicate themselves to expressing Torah ideas and values in a variety of art forms, explaining that:a) Through these media, it is possible to reach many Jews who might never enter a synagogue or Torah center;b) Everything in the world was created to be used by the Jews for a Torah purpose (Rashi, Genesis 1:1 . This also applies to art. Using these art forms for Torah purposes expresses the true intent for their creation and endows them with a depth of meaning and inspiration - and in its deepest sense, a new wellspring of creativity.
According to Kabbalah, God's presence is more manifest in the sefirah of Tiferet ("Beauty") than in any other sefirah. Thus, the challenge confronting a Torah artist today is to use beauty as a medium to express Godly truth.

מַדִּיחֵי עִיר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִסְקָלִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָבְדוּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אֶלָּא הִדִּיחוּ אֶת יוֹשְׁבֵי עִירָם עַד שֶׁעָבְדוּ אוֹתָהּ. וְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר הַמֻּדָּחִין נֶהֱרָגִין בְּסַיִף וְהוּא שֶׁעָבְדוּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אוֹ שֶׁקִּבְּלוּהָ עֲלֵיהֶם בֶּאֱלוֹהַּ. וְאַזְהָרָה לַמַּדִּיחַ מִנַּיִן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא יִשָּׁמַע עַל פִּיךָ: Those who lead [the inhabitants of] a Jewish city astray are executed by stoning, even though they themselves did not worship a false deity, but [merely] proselytized to the inhabitants of their city until they worshiped it.
The inhabitants of the city that has been led astray (עיר הנדחת) are executed by decapitation if they worshiped a false deity or accepted it as a god.
What is the source that serves as a warning against proselytizing on behalf of a false deity? "Let not [the name of another deity] be heard through your mouth."

אֵין הָעִיר נַעֲשֵׂית עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מַדִּיחֶיהָ מִתּוֹכָהּ וּמֵאוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מִקִּרְבֶּךָ (דברים יג יד) "וַיַּדִּיחוּ אֶת יוֹשְׁבֵי עִירָם". וְעַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מַדִּיחֶיהָ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ יֶתֶר עַל שְׁנַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג יד) "יָצְאוּ אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי בְלִיַּעַל וַיַּדִּיחוּ אֶת ישְׁבֵי עִירָם". וְעַד שֶׁיַּדִּיחוּ רֻבָּהּ. וְיִהְיוּ הַמֻּדָּחִין מִמֵּאָה וְעַד רֻבּוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁבֶט. אֲבָל אִם הֻדַּח רֻבּוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁבֶט דָּנִין אוֹתָם כִּיחִידִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג טז) "ישְׁבֵי הָעִיר" לֹא כְּפָר קָטָן וְלֹא כְּרַךְ גָּדוֹל. וְכָל פָּחוֹת מִמֵּאָה כְּפָר קָטָן. וְרֻבּוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁבֶט כְּרַךְ גָּדוֹל. וְכֵן אִם הִדִּיחוּהָ נָשִׁים אוֹ קְטַנִּים אוֹ שֶׁהִדִּיחָהּ יָחִיד אוֹ שֶׁהֻדְּחָה מִעוּטָהּ אוֹ שֶׁהֻדְּחוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ מַדִּיחֶיהָ מִחוּצָה לָהּ אֵין דָּנִין בָּהּ דִּין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הֵן כִּיחִידִים שֶׁעָבְדוּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְסוֹקְלִין כָּל מִי שֶׁעָבַר וּמָמוֹנָן לְיוֹרְשֵׁיהֶן כִּשְׁאָר הֲרוּגֵי בֵּית דִּין: A city is not condemned as an עיר הנדחת until two or more individuals attempt to lead its inhabitants astray, as [Deuteronomy 13:14] states: "Unfaithful people have emerged.... and have led astray the inhabitants of their city." The people who lead them astray must be from that tribe and from that city, as [the verse continues]: "from your midst."
Those led astray must be the majority [of the city's inhabitants]. They must number from [at least] 100 to the majority of the tribe. If, however, the majority of the tribe is led astray, they are judged as individuals, as implied by [the phrase in the following verse]: "the inhabitants of the city;" neither a small village nor a large metropolis. If there are fewer than 100, it is considered a small village. If the majority of the tribe is involved, it is considered to be a large metropolis.
Similarly, the laws applying to an עיר הנדחת are not enforced if:
the people who led them astray were women or minors,
they were led astray by a single individual,
a minority of the city were led astray,
they turned to idols on their own initiative, or
if those who led them astray came from outside the city.
Instead, [the violators] are considered to be individuals who worshiped false deities. All those who worshiped are executed by stoning, and their estate is given to their heirs like all others executed by a court.

אֵין דָּנִין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל אֶחָד וְשִׁבְעִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז ה) "וְהוֹצֵאתָ אֶת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא אוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַהִיא אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֶת הַדָּבָר הָרָע הַזֶּה אֶל שְׁעָרֶיךָ", יְחִידִים נֶהֱרָגִים בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל כָּל שַׁעַר וְשַׁעַר וְאֵין הַמְרֻבִּים נֶהֱרָגִין אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל: The laws of an עיר הנדחת are enforced only by a court of 71 judges, as [implied by Deuteronomy 17:5]: "And you shall take the man or woman who did that wicked thing to your gates." [This can be interpreted to mean:] Individuals are executed by the courts which are found at the gates [of every city]. A multitude are only executed by the supreme court.

אֵין אַחַת מֵעָרֵי מִקְלָט נַעֲשֵׂית עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ((דברים יז ב) "בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ") [בְּאַחַת עָרֶיךָ]. וְלֹא יְרוּשָׁלַיִם נַעֲשֵׂית עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַלְּקָה לִשְׁבָטִים. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת בַּסְּפָר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנְסוּ עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים וְיַחֲרִיבוּ אֶת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין אֶחָד עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלֹשׁ עֲיָרוֹת הַנִּדָּחוֹת זוֹ בְּצַד זוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מְרֻחָקוֹת עוֹשֶׂה: None of the cities of refuge can ever be condemned as an עיר הנדחת, as [implied by Deuteronomy 13:13]: "one of your cities." [Similarly,] Jerusalem can never be condemned as an עיר הנדחת, because it was not divided among the tribes.
A border city is never condemned as an עיר הנדחת, so that gentiles will not enter and destroy Eretz Yisrael. One court should not condemn three cities located next to each other as an עיר הנדחת. If [the cities] are separated from each other, they may condemn them.

אֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת עַד שֶׁיַּדִּיחוּהָ מַדִּיחֶיהָ בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבִּים וְיֹאמְרוּ לָהֶן נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבֹד אוֹ נֵלֵךְ וְנִזְבַּח אוֹ נֵלֵךְ וְנַקְטִיר אוֹ נֵלֵךְ וּנְנַסֵּךְ אוֹ נֵלֵךְ וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה אוֹ נֵלֵךְ וּנְקַבֵּל בֶּאֱלוֹהַּ וְהֵם שׁוֹמְעִים וְעָבְדוּ אוֹתָהּ דֶּרֶךְ עֲבוֹדָתָהּ אוֹ בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע עֲבוֹדוֹת אוֹ שֶׁקִּבְּלוּהָ בֵּאלוֹהַּ. עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַיְּמוּ בָּהּ וּבְמַדִּיחֶיהָ כָּל הַתְּנָאִים הָאֵלּוּ הֵיאַךְ עוֹשִׂים לָהֶם, מַתְרִין וּמְעִידִין בְּכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁעָבַד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְסוֹקְלִין אוֹתָם כִּיחִידִים שֶׁעָבְדוּ וּמָמוֹנָם לְיוֹרְשֵׁיהֶם: [A city] is not condemned as an עיר הנדחת unless those who proselytize [the inhabitants] address them in the plural, telling them, "Let us go and worship," "Let us go and sacrifice," "Let us go and bring a burnt offering," "Let us go and offer a libation," "Let us go and bow down," or "Let us go and accept [the deity] as a god."
[The inhabitants] must listen and then worship [the deity] with its accepted mode of worship, or through one of the four modes of worship [mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 3], or accept it as a god.
What happens if all these conditions are not fulfilled with regard to a city or those who proselytize [its inhabitants]? Warnings are given to each person who worships false gods, and testimony [is delivered against them]. They are executed by stoning as individuals who worshiped false gods, and their estate is given to their heirs.

וְהֵיאַךְ דִּין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. בִּזְמַן שֶׁתִּהְיֶה רְאוּיָה לְהֵעָשׂוֹת עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שׁוֹלְחִין וְדוֹרְשִׁין וְחוֹקְרִין עַד שֶׁיֵּדְעוּ בִּרְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה שֶׁהֻדְּחָה כָּל הָעִיר אוֹ רֻבָּהּ וְחָזְרוּ לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. אַחַר כָּךְ שׁוֹלְחִים לָהֶם שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים לְהַזְהִירָם וּלְהַחֲזִירָם. אִם חָזְרוּ וְעָשׂוּ תְּשׁוּבָה מוּטָב וְאִם יַעַמְדוּ בְּאִוַּלְתָּן בֵּית דִּין מְצַוִּין לְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲלוֹת עֲלֵיהֶן לַצָּבָא וְהֵן צָרִין עֲלֵיהֶם וְעוֹרְכִין עִמָּהֶן מִלְחָמָה עַד שֶׁתִּבָּקַע הָעִיר. כְּשֶׁתִּבָּקַע מִיָּד מַרְבִּין לָהֶם בָּתֵּי דִּינִין וְדָנִים אוֹתָם. כָּל מִי שֶׁבָּאוּ עָלָיו שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁעָבַד כּוֹכָבִים אַחַר שֶׁהִתְרוּ אוֹתוֹ מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ. נִמְצְאוּ כָּל הָעוֹבְדִים מִעוּטָהּ סוֹקְלִין אוֹתָן וּשְׁאָר הָעִיר נִצּוֹל. נִמְצְאוּ רֻבָּהּ מַעֲלִין אוֹתָן לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל וְגוֹמְרִין שָׁם דִּינָם וְהוֹרְגִין כָּל אֵלּוּ שֶׁעָבְדוּ בְּסַיִף. וּמַכִּין אֶת כָּל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ לְפִי חָרֶב טַף וְנָשִׁים אִם הֻדְּחָה כֻּלָּהּ. וְאִם נִמְצְאוּ הָעוֹבְדִים רֻבָּהּ מַכִּים אֶת כָּל הַטַּף וְנָשִׁים שֶׁל עוֹבְדִים לְפִי חָרֶב. וּבֵין שֶׁהֻדְּחָה כֻּלָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁהֻדְּחָה רֻבָּהּ סוֹקְלִין אֶת מַדִּיחֶיהָ וּמְקַבְּצִין כָּל שְׁלָלָהּ אֶל תּוֹךְ רְחוֹבָהּ. אֵין לָהּ רְחוֹב עוֹשִׂין לָהּ רְחוֹב. הָיָה רְחוֹבָהּ חוּצָה לָהּ בּוֹנִין חוֹמָה חוּץ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס לְתוֹכָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֶל תּוֹךְ רְחֹבָהּ. וְהוֹרְגִין כָּל נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ וְשׂוֹרְפִין אֶת כָּל שְׁלָלָהּ עִם הַמְּדִינָה בָּאֵשׁ. וּשְׂרֵפָתָהּ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג יז) "וְשָׂרַפְתָּ בָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעִיר וְאֶת כָּל שְׁלָלָהּ": What is the judgment rendered against an עיר הנדחת when all the criteria for that judgment have been met?
The supreme Sanhedrin sends [emissaries] who investigate and probe until they have established clear proof that the entire city - or the majority of its inhabitants - have turned to the worship of false gods.
Afterwards, they send two Torah sages to warn them and to motivate them to repentance. If they repent, it is good. If they continue their wicked ways, the court commands the entire Jewish people to take up arms against them. They lay siege to the city and wage war against it until the city falls.
When the city falls, very many courts are set up, and [the inhabitants] are judged. All those people against whom two witnesses testify that they worshiped a false deity after receiving a warning are separated. If those who worshiped [the false deity] constitute only a minority [of the city's inhabitants], they are stoned to death, but the rest of the city is saved. If they constitute a majority, they are brought to the supreme Sanhedrin and their judgment is concluded there. All those who worshiped [the false deity] are executed by decapitation.
If the entire city was led astray, all of the inhabitants including the women and the children are slain by the sword. If a majority of the inhabitants were led astray, the transgressors' wives and children are slain by the sword. Whether the entire city or only a majority of its inhabitants were led astray, those who proselytized [on behalf of the false deity] are stoned to death.
All the property within it is collected within its main street. If it does not have a main street, a main street is made for it. If its main street is located outside its confines, its wall is extended until its [main street] is included within its confines, as [implied by Deuteronomy 13:17]: "[Gather all its goods] in the midst of its main street."
All live animals that are contained within are slain. All its property and the city [as a whole] are burned with fire. Burning them fulfills a positive commandment, as [the verse continues]: "Burn the city and all its goods entirely."

נִכְסֵי הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ וְהֵם שְׁאָר יוֹשְׁבֵי הָעִיר שֶׁלֹּא הֻדְּחוּ עִם רֻבָּהּ נִשְׂרָפִין בִּכְלַל שְׁלָלָהּ הוֹאִיל וְיָשְׁבוּ שָׁם מָמוֹנָן אָבַד. וְכָל הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִמֶּנָּה בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה אַחַת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג יח) "וְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה מִן הַחֵרֶם": The property of the righteous men - i.e., the remainder of the city's inhabitants who were not led astray with the majority - that is located within the city should be burned together with all its property. Since they resided there, their fortunes are destroyed.
Whoever derives even the slightest benefit from [the city's property] receives a single measure of lashes, as [Deuteronomy 13:18] states: "Let nothing that has been condemned remain in your possession."

וְעִיר הַנִּדַּחַת שֶׁהוּזְמוּ עֵדֵיהָ כָּל הַמַּחֲזִיק בִּנְכָסֶיהָ זָכָה וּמֻתָּר לֵהָנוֹת בּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּזְמוּ. וְלָמָּה זָכָה בָּהּ שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד כְּבָר הִפְקִיר מָמוֹנוֹ מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ. וְאֵינָהּ נִבְנֵית לְעוֹלָם וְכָל הַבּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג יז) "לֹא תִבָּנֶה עוֹד". וּמֻתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ גִּנּוֹת וּפַרְדֵּסִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תִבָּנֶה עוֹד לֹא תִבָּנֶה מְדִינָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה: [The following rules apply when] the witnesses who testified against an עיר הנדחת were disqualified as zomemim: Whoever takes possession of any property is considered to have acquired it and may derive benefit from it, since the [incriminating testimony - and thus, the judgment based upon it -] has been nullified.
Why do they acquire it? Because each of the city's inhabitants gave up ownership of his property after the judgment was rendered.
[An עיר הנדחת] may never be rebuilt, and a person who rebuilds it is [liable for] lashes, as [Deuteronomy 13:17] states: "...never to be rebuilt." It is permitted to use it for gardens and orchards. "Never to be rebuilt" implies only that it should not be rebuilt as a city, as it was previously.

שַׁיָּרָא הָעוֹבֶרֶת מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם אִם עָבְרָה בָּעִיר הַנִּדַּחַת וְהֻדְּחָה עִמָּהּ. אִם שָׁהֲתָה שָׁם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם נֶהֱרָגִין בְּסַיִף וּמָמוֹנָם אָבֵד וְאִם לָאו הֵן בִּסְקִילָה וּמָמוֹנָם לְיוֹרְשֵׁיהֶן: [The following laws apply to] a caravan which journeys from one place to another, passes through an עיר הנדחת, and is led astray with it: If they had remained [in the city] thirty days, they are executed by decapitation and their property is condemned. If they were there for a lesser period, they are executed by stoning, but their property is given to their heirs.

נִכְסֵי אַנְשֵׁי מְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת שֶׁהָיוּ מֻפְקָדִין בְּתוֹכָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת אֵין נִשְׂרָפִין אֶלָּא יַחְזְרוּ לְבַעֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג יז) "שְׁלָלָהּ" וְלֹא שְׁלַל חֲבֵרְתָהּ. נִכְסֵי הָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁהֻדְּחוּ שֶׁהָיוּ מֻפְקָדִין בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת אִם נִקְבְּצוּ עִמָּהּ נִשְׂרָפִין בִּכְלָלָהּ וְאִם לָאו אֵין מְאַבְּדִים אוֹתָם אֶלָּא יִנָּתְנוּ לְיוֹרְשֵׁיהֶם: Property belonging to people of other cities which is kept within [an עיר הנדחת] is not burned, but rather is returned to its owners. [This applies] even when [the inhabitants of the עיר הנדחת] accepted responsibility for it, as implied by [Deuteronomy 13:17]: "its goods" - i.e., its goods, and not those belonging to others.
[The following rules apply to] property belonging to the wicked - i.e., those who were swayed [to idol worship] - which was kept in other cities. If [that property] was gathered together with the property of the עיר הנדחת, they are burned together. If not, it is not destroyed, but rather is given to the heirs.

בְּהֵמָה חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת וְחֶצְיָהּ שֶׁל עִיר אַחֶרֶת שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּתוֹכָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה. וְעִסָּה שֶׁהִיא כֵּן מֻתֶּרֶת לְפִי שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְחַלְּקָהּ: If an animal which partially belongs to [an inhabitant of] an עיר הנדחת and partially belongs to [a person living in] another city is found within [the עיר הנדחת], it is forbidden. [In contrast,] a loaf of bread which is owned by such [partners] is permitted, because it can be divided.

בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה כְּשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט. שְׂעַר הָרֹאשׁ בֵּין שֶׁל אֲנָשִׁים בֵּין שֶׁל נָשִׁים שֶׁבָּהּ מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה אֲבָל שֶׁל פֵּאָה נָכְרִית הֲרֵי הוּא מִכְּלַל שְׁלָלָהּ וְאָסוּר: It is forbidden to benefit from an animal which belongs to [an inhabitant of] an עיר הנדחת and which was slaughtered, just as it is forbidden to derive benefit from an ox which was condemned to be stoned and was slaughtered.
We are permitted to benefit from the hair of both men and women of [the condemned city]. A wig, however, is considered part of "its goods," and is therefore forbidden.

פֵּרוֹת הַמְחֻבָּרִין שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ מֻתָּרִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג יז) "תִּקְבֹּץ" (דברים יג יז) "וְשָׂרַפְתָּ" מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻסָּר אֶלָּא קִבּוּץ וּשְׂרֵפָה יָצְאוּ פֵּרוֹת הַמְחֻבָּרִין שֶׁהֵן מְחֻסָּרִין תְּלִישָׁה וְקִבּוּץ וּשְׂרֵפָה. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׂעַר הָרֹאשׁ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר הָאִילָנוֹת עַצְמָן שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִים וַהֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל יוֹרְשֵׁיהֶם. הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ יָמוּתוּ [שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר] זֶבַח רְשָׁעִים תּוֹעֵבָה. קָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת יִפָּדוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג יז) "שְׁלָלָהּ" וְלֹא שְׁלַל שָׁמַיִם: Produce which is connected [to its source of nurture] is permitted, as [implied by Deuteronomy 13:17]: "Gather [all its goods...] Burn..." - i.e., this includes only those articles which must merely be gathered and burned, and thus excludes produce which is still connected [to its source of nurture], and would have to be severed and gathered in order to be burned.
The same principle applies to [the inhabitants'] hair. Needless to say, the trees themselves are permitted and are bequeathed to the heirs.
[The following rules apply to] the consecrated property within it: Those animals which were consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar themselves must die, since "the sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination" [Proverbs 21:27]. Property which is consecrated for the purposes of the Temple must be redeemed, and afterwards is burned, [as implied by the word] "its goods" - its goods and not those which are consecrated.

הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ תְּמִימִים הֲרֵי הֵן קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְיָמוּתוּ. וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִים הֲרֵי הֵן בִּכְלַל בְּהֶמְתָּהּ וְנֶהֱרָגִין. הַתְּרוּמוֹת שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ אִם הִגִּיעוּ לְיַד כֹּהֵן יֵרָקְבוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם נְכָסָיו. וְאִם עֲדַיִן הֵן בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל יִנָּתְנוּ לְכֹהֵן שֶׁל מְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נִכְסֵי שָׁמַיִם וּקְדֻשָּׁתָן קְדֻשַּׁת הַגּוּף: [The following rules apply to] firstborn animals and the animal tithes that are found within [the עיר הנדחת]: Those that are unblemished are considered to be animals consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar and must die. Those that are blemished are considered to be "its animals," and are slain [with them].
[The following rules apply to] terumah which is contained within the city: If it has already been given to a priest, it should be allowed to rot, because it is considered his private property. If it is still in the possession of an Israelite, it should be given to a priest in another city, because it is considered to be "the property of heaven," and its consecrated nature extends to its actual substance.

מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְכִתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִגָּנְזוּ: The second tithe, money used to redeem the second tithe, and sacred writings in it must be entombed.

כָּל הָעוֹשֶׂה דִּין בְּעִיר הַנִּדַּחַת הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַקְרִיב עוֹלָה כָּלִיל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג יז) "כָּלִיל לַה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ". וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁמְּסַלֵּק חֲרוֹן אַף מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג יח) "לְמַעַן יָשׁוּב ה' מֵחֲרוֹן אַפּוֹ". וּמֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם בְּרָכָה וְרַחֲמִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג יח) "וְנָתַן לְךָ רַחֲמִים וְרִחַמְךָ וְהִרְבֶּךָ": Anyone who administers the judgment of an עיר הנדחת is considered as if he offered a burnt offering consumed entirely by fire, as [Deuteronomy 13:17] states: "...entirely for the sake of God, your Lord." Furthermore, such action diverts [Divine] wrath from the Jews, as [the following verse continues]: "so that God's fierce anger will be allayed," and it brings them blessing and mercy [as the verse] states: "And He will grant you mercy. He will deal mercifully with you and will make you flourish."

הַמֵּסִית אֶחָד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין אִישׁ בֵּין אִשָּׁה הֲרֵי זֶה נִסְקָל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָבַד הַמֵּסִית וְלֹא הַמּוּסָת עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹרָהוּ לַעֲבֹד. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַמֵּסִית הֶדְיוֹט בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה נָבִיא בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַמּוּסָת יָחִיד אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה אוֹ יְחִידִים מִיתָתוֹ בִּסְקִילָה: A person who proselytizes [a mesit] to any single Jew [a musat] - whether man or woman - on behalf of false deities should be stoned to death. [This applies] even if neither the mesit or the musat actually worshiped the false deity.
As long as he instructed him to worship [the false deity], he should be executed by stoning, regardless of whether the mesit was a prophet or an ordinary person, or whether the musat was a single individual - man or woman - or whether several people were proselytized.

הַמֵּסִית אֶת רֹב אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר הֲרֵי זֶה מַדִּיחַ וְאֵינוֹ נִקְרָא מֵסִית. הָיָה זֶה שֶׁהִדִּיחַ רֹב הָעִיר נָבִיא מִיתָתוֹ בִּסְקִילָה וְהַנִּדָּחִים הֲרֵי הֵן כִּיחִידִים וְאֵינָם כְּאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַמַּדִּיחִים שְׁנַיִם. וְאֶחָד הָאוֹמֵר אָמְרָה לִי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים עִבְדוּהָ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר אָמַר לִי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עִבְדוּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הֲרֵי זֶה נָבִיא שֶׁהִדִּיחַ. וְאִם הֻדְּחוּ אַחֲרָיו רֹב הָעִיר נִסְקָל. הַמֵּסִית שֶׁהֵסִית בֵּין בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבִּים בֵּין בִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד הֲרֵי זֶה נִסְקָל. כֵּיצַד. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ אֶעֱבֹד כּוֹכָבִים אֵלֵךְ וְאֶעֱבֹד נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבֹד בַּעֲבוֹדָה פְּלוֹנִית שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ אוֹתָהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים לְהֵעָבֵד בָּהּ. אֶזְבַּח אֵלֵךְ וְאֶזְבַּח נֵלֵךְ וְנִזְבַּח. אֲקַטֵּר אֵלֵךְ וַאֲקַטֵר נֵלֵךְ וּנְקַטֵּר. אֲנַסֵּךְ אֵלֵךְ וַאֲנַסֵּךְ נֵלֵךְ וּנְנַסֵּךְ. אֶשְׁתַּחֲוֶה אֵלֵךְ וְאֶשְׁתַּחֲוֶה נֵלֵךְ וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה הֲרֵי זֶה מֵסִית. הֵסִית לִשְׁנַיִם הֲרֵי הֵן עֵדָיו וְהֵן מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וּמְעִידִין עָלָיו שֶׁכָּךְ אָמַר לָהֶן וְסוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ: A person who proselytizes the majority of the inhabitants of a city is called a madiach rather than a mesit. If the person who leads the majority of a city astray is a prophet, he is executed by stoning, and the people who were led astray are judged as individuals, and are not considered to be inhabitants of an עיר הנדחת. [For the latter laws to be applied,] two people must proselytize them.
If a person says: "A false deity told me: 'Serve me,'" or "The Holy One, blessed be He, told me: 'Serve a false deity'" - he is considered a prophet who leads others astray. If the majority of the city's inhabitants are swayed by his words, he should be stoned to death.
A mesit should be stoned to death whether he proselytizes in plural terms or in singular. What is implied? He is considered a mesit if he tells a colleague, "I will worship a false deity. [Follow me.] I will go and worship..." or "Let us go and worship following the particular rite with which that deity is served," "I will slaughter. [Follow me.] I will go and slaughter..." or "Let us go and slaughter," "I will bring a burnt offering. [Follow me.] I will go and bring a burnt offering..." or "Let us go and bring a burnt offering," "I will offer a libation. [Follow me.] I will go and offer a libation..." or "Let us go and offer a libation," or "I will bow down. [Follow me.] I will go and bow down..." or "Let us go and bow down."
When a person proselytizes two individuals, they may serve as witnesses against him. They should summon him to court and testify against him, relating what he told them, and the mesit is stoned.

וְאֵין הַמֵּסִית צָרִיךְ הַתְרָאָה. אָמַר לְאֶחָד הוּא אוֹמֵר יֵשׁ לִי חֲבֵרִים רוֹצִים בְּכָךְ וּמַעֲרִים עָלָיו עַד שֶׁיָּסִית בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם כְּדֵי לְהָרְגוֹ. אִם לֹא רָצָה הַמֵּסִית לְהָסִית לִשְׁנַיִם מִצְוָה לְהַכְמִין לוֹ. כָּל חַיָּבֵי מִיתוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֵין מַכְמִינִין עֲלֵיהֶן חוּץ מִזֶּה. כֵּיצַד מַכְמִינִין לוֹ. הַמּוּסָת מֵבִיא שְׁנַיִם וּמַעֲמִידָן בְּמָקוֹם אָפֵל כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּרְאוּ הַמֵּסִית וְיִשְׁמְעוּ דְּבָרָיו וְלֹא יִרְאֶה אוֹתָם, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לַמֵּסִית אֱמֹר מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתָּ לִי בְּיִחוּד, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ, וְהַמּוּסָת מְשִׁיבוֹ הֵיאַךְ נַנִּיחַ אֶת אֱלֹהֵינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם וְנֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבֹד אֶת הָעֵצִים וְאֶת הָאֲבָנִים. אִם חָזַר בּוֹ אוֹ שָׁתַק פָּטוּר. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ כָּךְ הִיא חוֹבָתֵנוּ וְכָךְ יָפֶה לָנוּ, הָעוֹמְדִים שָׁם בְּרָחוֹק מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וְסוֹקְלִים אוֹתוֹ: A mesit does not need a warning.
If one proselytizes a single individual, the latter should tell him, "I have friends who would also be interested in this," and thus he should lure him into proselytizing before two people, so that the mesit can be executed.
If the mesit refuses to proselytize before two people, it is a mitzvah to set a trap for him. A trap is never set for a person who violates any of the Torah's other prohibitions. This is the only exception.
How is the trap set for him? The musat should bring two people and place them in a dark place where they can see the mesit and hear what he is saying without his seeing them. He tells the mesit: "Repeat what you told me privately."
[When] he does so, the musat should reply: "How can we forsake our God in heaven and serve wood and stone?" If [the mesit] retracts or remains silent, he is not held liable. If he tells him, "This is our obligation and this is beneficial to us," those who stand far off have him summoned to court and stoned.

מִצְוָה בְּיַד הַמּוּסָת לְהָרְגוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג י) "יָדְךָ תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ" וְגוֹ'. וְאָסוּר לַמּוּסָת לֶאֱהֹב אֶת הַמֵּסִית שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג ט) "לֹא תֹאבֶה לוֹ". וּלְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּשׂוֹנֵא (שמות כג ה) "עָזֹב תַּעֲזֹב עִמּוֹ" יָכוֹל אַתָּה עוֹזֵב לָזֶה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים יג ט) "וְלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֵלָיו". וּלְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט טז) "וְלֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל דַּם רֵעֶךָ" יָכוֹל אִי אַתָּה עוֹמֵד עַל דָּמוֹ שֶׁל זֶה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים יג ט) "וְלֹא תָחוֹס עֵינְךָ". וְאָסוּר לַמּוּסָת לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג ט) "וְלֹא תַחְמל". וְאִם יָדַע לוֹ חוֹבָה אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִשְׁתֹּק מִמֶּנָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג ט) "וְלֹא תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו". וְאַזְהָרָה לְהֶדְיוֹט הַמֵּסִית מִנַּיִן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג יב) "וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ": It is a mitzvah for the musat to kill [the mesit], as [Deuteronomy 13:10] states: "Your hand must be the first against him to kill him."
It is forbidden for the musat to love the mesit, as [the previous verse states]: "Do not be attracted to him." Since [Exodus 23:5] states with regard to an enemy: "You must surely help him," [the question arises:] Perhaps you should help a mesit? The Torah [Deuteronomy, ibid.] teaches, "Do not... listen to him."
Since [Leviticus 19:16] teaches: "Do not stand idly over your brother's blood," [the question arises:] Perhaps you should not stand idly over a mesit's blood? The Torah teaches, [Deuteronomy, ibid.] "Do not let your eyes pity him."
The musat is forbidden to advance any arguments on his behalf, as [the verse continues,] "Do not show him any compassion." If he knows incriminating evidence, he is not permitted to remain silent, as [the verse continues,] "Do not try to cover up for him."
What is the verse which serves as a warning against a common person proselytizing as a mesit? "And all Israel will hear and they will become afraid [and they will not continue to do such evil things]" (Deuteronomy 13:12 .

הַמֵּסִית אֲחֵרִים לְעָבְדוֹ וְאָמַר לָהֶם עִבְדוּנִי אִם עֲבָדוּהוּ נִסְקָל וְאִם לֹא עֲבָדוּהוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְאָמְרוּ הֵן אֵינוֹ נִסְקָל. אֲבָל אִם הֵסִית לַעֲבוֹדַת אִישׁ אַחֵר אוֹ לִשְׁאָר מִינֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אִם קִבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ וְאָמַר הֵן נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבֹד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא עָבַד שְׁנֵיהֶן נִסְקָלִין הַמֵּסִית וְהַמּוּסָת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג ט) "לֹא תֹאבֶה לוֹ וְלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֵלָיו" הָא אִם שָׁמַע וְאָבָה חַיָּב: [The following rules apply to] a person who proselytizes others by telling them to worship him: Should he tell them: "Worship me," and they worship him, he should be stoned. If they did not worship him, even though they accepted and agreed to his statements, he is not liable for stoning.
In contrast, if he proselytizes by telling them to worship another man or another false deity, [different rules apply:] If they accept his statements and say, "We will go and worship," even if they have not actually worshiped, both of them - the mesit and the musat - should be stoned. [Deuteronomy 13:9] states: "Do not be attracted to him or listen to him." Thus, if one was attracted and listened, one is held liable.

נָבִיא הַמִּתְנַבֵּא בְּשֵׁם עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים כֵּיצַד. זֶה הָאוֹמֵר אָמְרָה לִי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים פְּלוֹנִית אוֹ כּוֹכָב פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמִּצְוָה לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּךְ וְכָךְ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹת, אֲפִלּוּ כִּוֵּן אֶת הַהֲלָכָה לְטַמֵּא אֶת הַטָּמֵא וּלְטַהֵר אֶת הַטָּהוֹר, אִם הִתְרוּ בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה נֶחְנָק שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יח כ) "וַאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר בְּשֵׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וּמֵת הַנָּבִיא הַהוּא". וְאַזְהָרָה שֶׁלּוֹ מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג יג) "וְשֵׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תַזְכִּירוּ": What is meant by [the expression], a prophet who prophesies in the name of false gods? A person who says: "This false deity or this star told me that we are commanded to do such and such or to refrain from doing so." [This applies] even when he stated the law accurately, labeling the impure as impure and the pure as pure.
If a warning was given to him [beforehand], he is executed by strangulation, as [Deuteronomy 18:20] states: "And one who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die." The warning against this [transgression] is included in the statement, [Exodus 23:13:] "And you shall not mention the name of other gods."

וְאָסוּר לַעֲרֹךְ דִּין וּתְשׁוּבָה עִם הַמִּתְנַבֵּא בְּשֵׁם עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְאֵין שׁוֹאֲלִין מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹת וּמוֹפֵת. וְאִם עָשָׂה מֵעַצְמוֹ אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עָלָיו וְאֵין מְהַרְהֲרִין בּוֹ. וְכָל הַמְחַשֵּׁב בְּאוֹתוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֱמֶת הֵן עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג ד) "לֹא תִשְׁמַע אֶל דִּבְרֵי הַנָּבִיא הַהוּא". וְכֵן נְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר מִיתָתוֹ בְּחֶנֶק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְנַבֵּא בְּשֵׁם ה' וְלֹא הוֹסִיף וְלֹא גָּרַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יח כ) "אַךְ הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר יָזִיד לְדַבֵּר דָּבָר בִּשְׁמִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִי" (דברים יח כ) "וּמֵת הַנָּבִיא הַהוּא": It is forbidden to enter into a discussion or a debate with one who prophesies in the name of a false deity. We may not ask him to perform a sign or wonder, and if he does so on his own accord, we should pay no attention to it nor think about it. Whoever contemplates about the wonders [he performed, thinking], "Perhaps they are true," violates a negative commandment, as [Deuteronomy 13:4] states: "Do not listen to the words of that prophet."
Similarly, a false prophet should be executed by strangulation. [He is to be executed] although he speaks in the name of God and neither adds to nor diminishes [the mitzvot], as [Deuteronomy 18:20] states: "However, the prophet who dares to speak a matter in My name which I did not command - that prophet shall die."

אֶחָד הַמִּתְנַבֵּא מַה שֶּׁלֹּא שָׁמַע בְּמַרְאֵה הַנְּבוּאָה אוֹ מִי שֶׁשָּׁמַע דִּבְרֵי נָבִיא חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה לוֹ נֶאֱמַר וְהוּא נִתְנַבֵּא בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נְבִיא שֶׁקֶר וּמִיתָתוֹ בְּחֶנֶק: [The category of] a false prophet includes:
a) one who "prophesies" regarding something that was never heard through prophetic vision;
b) one who "prophesies" about a subject which he heard from another prophet, saying that this prophecy was given to him.
[Both of these individuals] are to be executed by strangulation.

כָּל הַמּוֹנֵעַ עַצְמוֹ מֵהֲרִיגַת נְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר מִפְּנֵי מַעֲלָתוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹלֵךְ בְּדַרְכֵי הַנְּבוּאָה הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יח כב) "לֹא תָגוּר מִמֶּנּוּ". וְכֵן הַמּוֹנֵעַ עַצְמוֹ מִלְּלַמֵּד עָלָיו חוֹבָה אוֹ הַפּוֹחֵד וְיָרֵא מִדְּבָרָיו הֲרֵי הוּא בִּכְלַל לֹא תָגוּר מִמֶּנּוּ. וְאֵין דָּנִין נְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד: Anyone who refrains from executing a false prophet because of the latter's [spiritual] level, [as expressed by] his adherence to the paths of prophecy, violates a negative commandment, as [Deuteronomy 18:22] states: "Do not fear him." Similarly, included within [the scope of the prohibition:] "Do not fear him" are one who withholds incriminating testimony against [a false prophet] and one who is afraid or in awe of his words.
A false prophet may be tried only by the [supreme] court of 71 judges.

הַנּוֹדֵר בְּשֵׁם עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְהַנִּשְׁבָּע בָּהּ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג יג) "וְשֵׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תַזְכִּירוּ". אֶחָד הַנִּשְׁבָּע בָּהּ לְעַצְמוֹ וְאֶחָד הַנִּשְׁבָּע בָּהּ לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. וְאָסוּר לְהַשְׁבִּיעַ הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים בְּיִרְאָתוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ לְהַזְכִּיר שֵׁם עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁלֹּא דֶּרֶךְ שְׁבוּעָה אָסוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תַזְכִּירוּ: A person who makes a vow or takes an oath in the name of a false deity is [liable for] lashes, as [Exodus 23:13] states: "And you shall not mention the name of other gods."
[This applies] both to one who takes such an oath for his own reasons and to one who takes such an oath because of a gentile. It is forbidden to have a gentile take an oath on his deity. It is even forbidden to mention the name of a gentile deity without any connection to an oath, as [implied by the expression], "You shall not mention."

לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁמֹר לִי בַּצַּד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים פְּלוֹנִית וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ. וְכָל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הַכְּתוּבָה בְּכִתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מֻתָּר לְהַזְכִּיר שְׁמָהּ כְּגוֹן פְּעוֹר וּבֵל וּנְבוֹ וְגָד וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְאָסוּר לִגְרֹם לַאֲחֵרִים שֶׁיִּדְּרוּ וְשֶׁיְּקַיְּמוּ בְּשֵׁם עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא הַנּוֹדֵר בִּשְׁמָהּ וְהַמְקַיֵּם בִּשְׁמָהּ וְהוּא הַנִּשְׁבָּע בִּשְׁמָהּ: A person should not tell a colleague: "Wait for me near a particular false deity," or the like.
It is permitted to mention the name of any false deity that is mentioned in the Bible - e.g., Peor, Ba'al, Nevo, Gad, and the like. It is forbidden to cause others to take oaths or vows in the name of false deities. [In regard to all these prohibitions,] the only [transgressor] liable for lashes is one who [himself] makes a vow or an oath in the name [of a false deity].

הָעוֹשֶׂה אוֹב אוֹ יִדְּעֹנִי בִּרְצוֹנוֹ בְּזָדוֹן חַיָּב כָּרֵת וְאִם הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה נִסְקָל. הָיָה שׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. כֵּיצַד הוּא מַעֲשֵׂה הָאוֹב. זֶה שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד וּמַקְטִיר קְטֹרֶת יְדוּעָה וְאוֹחֵז שַׁרְבִיט שֶׁל הֲדַס בְּיָדוֹ וּמְנִיפוֹ וְהוּא מְדַבֵּר בַּלָּאט בִּדְבָרִים יְדוּעִים אֶצְלָם עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּאִלּוּ אֶחָד מְדַבֵּר עִמּוֹ וּמְשִׁיבוֹ עַל מַה שֶּׁהוּא שׁוֹאֵל בִּדְבָרִים מִתַּחַת הָאָרֶץ בְּקוֹל נָמוּךְ עַד מְאֹד וּכְאִלּוּ אֵינוֹ נִכָּר לָאֹזֶן אֶלָּא בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה מַרְגִּישׁ בּוֹ. וְכֵן הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֻּלְגּלֶת הַמֵּת וּמַקְטִיר לָהּ וּמְנַחֵשׁ בָּהּ עַד שֶׁיִּשָּׁמַע כְּאִלּוּ קוֹל יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת שֶׁחְיוֹ שָׁפָל עַד מְאֹד וּמְשִׁיבוֹ. כָּל אֵלּוּ מַעֲשֵׂה אוֹב הֵן וְהָעוֹשֶׂה אֶחָד מֵהֶן נִסְקָל: Anyone who willingly, as a conscious act of defiance, performs the deeds associated with an ov or a yid'oni is liable for karet. If witnesses were present and warned him, he should be stoned to death. If he performed these actions inadvertently, he must bring a fixed sin offering.
What do the deeds associated with an ov involve? A person stands up and offers an incense offering of known content. He holds a wand of myrtle in his hand and waves it while whispering a known incantation in a hushed tone. [This continues] until the person making the inquiry hears a voice, as if another person is speaking to him and replying to his questions. It appears as if the words are coming from below the earth in a very low tone, to the extent that it cannot be perceived by the ear, but only sensed by thought.
Similarly, among the deeds associated with an ov is taking the skull of a corpse, offering incense, and chanting incantations until one hears a voice in a very low tone emanating from his armpits and replying [to his questions]. Anyone who performs one of these acts should be stoned to death.

כֵּיצַד מַעֲשֵׂה הַיִּדְּעֹנִי. מֵנִיחַ עֶצֶם עוֹף שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ יָדוּעַ בְּפִיו וּמַקְטִיר וְעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשִׂים אֲחֵרִים עַד שֶׁיִּפּל כְּנִכְפֶּה וִידַבֵּר בְּפִיו דְּבָרִים שֶׁעֲתִידִים לִהְיוֹת. וְכָל אֵלּוּ מִינֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הֵן וְאַזְהָרָה שֶׁלָּהֶן מִנַּיִן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט לא) "אַל תִּפְנוּ אֶל הָאֹבֹת" וְגוֹ': What do the deeds associated with a yid'oni involve? A person places a bone from a bird whose name is yidua in his mouth, offers incense, and performs other deeds until he falls into a trance, [losing self-control] like an epileptic, and relates events which will occur in the future.
All of these are types of idol worship. What is the source for the warning against them? [Leviticus 19:31]: "Do not turn to the ovot or the yid'onim."

הַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמּלֶךְ בִּרְצוֹנוֹ וּבְזָדוֹן חַיָּב כָּרֵת. בְּשׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. וְאִם עָשָׂה בְּעֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה נִסְקָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ ב) "אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמּלֶךְ מוֹת יוּמָת" וְגוֹ'. וְאַזְהָרָה שֶׁלּוֹ מִנַּיִן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח כא) "וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לְהַעֲבִיר לַמּלֶךְ" וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים יח י) "לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ מַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ". כֵּיצַד הָיוּ עוֹשִׂים. מַדְלִיק אֵשׁ גְּדוֹלָה וְלוֹקֵחַ מִקְצָת זַרְעוֹ וּמוֹסְרוֹ לְכֹהֲנֵיהֶם עוֹבְדֵי הָאֵשׁ. וְאוֹתָן הַכֹּהֲנִים נוֹתְנִין הַבֵּן לְאָבִיו אַחַר שֶׁנִּמְסַר בְּיָדָן לְהַעֲבִירוֹ בָּאֵשׁ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וַאֲבִי הַבֵּן הוּא שֶׁמַּעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ עַל הָאֵשׁ בִּרְשׁוּת הַכֹּהֲנִים וּמַעֲבִירוֹ בְּרַגְלָיו מִצַּד זֶה לְצַד אַחֵר בְּתוֹךְ הַשַּׁלְהֶבֶת. לֹא שֶׁהוּא שׂוֹרְפוֹ לַמּלֶךְ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין בְּנֵיהֶם וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶם לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אַחֶרֶת אֶלָּא בְּהַעֲבָרָה בִּלְבַד הָיְתָה עֲבוֹדָה זוֹ שֶׁשְּׁמָהּ מלֶךְ. לְפִיכָךְ הָעוֹשֶׂה עֲבוֹדָה זוֹ לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אַחֶרֶת חוּץ מִמּלֶךְ פָּטוּר: Anyone who willingly, as a conscious act of defiance, gives of his progeny to Molech is liable for karet. If he did so inadvertently, he must bring a fixed sin offering. If witnesses were present and warned him, he should be stoned to death, as [Leviticus 20:2] states: "Whoever gives of his progeny to Molech will surely die. The people will stone him."
Which verse serves as a warning for this [prohibition]? "Do not give of your progeny to Molech" [Leviticus 18:21]. Also, further on [Deuteronomy 18:10] states: "There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire."
What was done? A person would kindle a great fire and then take some of his progeny and give them to the priests who serve the fire. After the child was given to them, the priests return the son to his father to pass him through the fire at his will. The father of the child is the one who passes his child through the fire with the priests' permission. He passes him through the fire from one side to the other [while carrying him, the father walking on] his feet in the midst of the flames.
Thus, [the father] does not cremate his son to Molech, as sons and daughters are cremated in the worship of other deities. Rather, this form of worship called Molech involved merely passing [the child through the fire]. Therefore, if one performed this service to a deity other than Molech, one is not liable.

אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת אוֹ סְקִילָה עַד שֶׁיִּמְסֹר בְּנוֹ לַמּלֶךְ וְיַעֲבִירוֹ בְּרַגְלָיו בָּאֵשׁ דֶּרֶךְ הַעֲבָרָה. מָסַר וְלֹא הֶעֱבִיר הֶעֱבִיר וְלֹא מָסַר. אוֹ שֶׁמָּסַר וְהֶעֱבִיר שֶׁלֹּא בְּדֶרֶךְ הַעֲבָרָה פָּטוּר. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּמְסֹר מִקְצָת זַרְעוֹ וְיָנִיחַ מִקְצָת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ ג) "כִּי מִזַּרְעוֹ נָתַן לַמּלֶךְ" מִקְצָתוֹ וְלֹא כֻּלּוֹ: One is not liable for karet or stoning until one gives over his son to Molech, passing him through the fire as he carries him. If he gives him over, but does not pass him through the flames, or passes him through the flames without giving him over, or gives him over and passes him through the flames, but does not carry him, he is not held liable.
He is not held liable until he gives over some of his progeny and leaves some of his progeny, as [implied by Leviticus 20:3]: "For he gave of his progeny to Molech" - i.e., some [of his progeny] and not his entire [progeny].

אֶחָד זֶרַע כָּשֵׁר וְאֶחָד זֶרַע פָּסוּל אֶחָד בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו בְּנֵיהֶם וּבְנֵי בְּנֵיהֶם עַל כָּל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ הוּא חַיָּב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן זַרְעוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הֶעֱבִיר אֶחָיו אוֹ אַחְיוֹתָיו אוֹ אֲבוֹתָיו אוֹ שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר עַצְמוֹ פָּטוּר. הֶעֱבִיר אֶחָד מִזַּרְעוֹ וְהוּא יָשֵׁן אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה סוּמָא פָּטוּר: [The prohibition against giving one's progeny to Molech includes:] both progeny of legitimate pedigree and illegitimate pedigree, sons and daughters, children and grandchildren. One is liable for giving over any of one's descendants, because they are all included in the term "progeny."
In contrast, if one passed one's brothers, sisters, or ancestors [through the fire] or if one caused oneself to be passed through the fires, one is not held liable. A person who passes one of his progeny [through the fire] while he is sleeping or blind is not liable.

מַצֵּבָה שֶׁאָסְרָה תּוֹרָה הִיא בִּנְיָן שֶׁהַכּל מִתְקַבְּצִין אֶצְלָהּ וַאֲפִלּוּ לַעֲבֹד אֶת ה' שֶׁכֵּן הָיָה דֶּרֶךְ עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טז כב) "וְלֹא תָקִים לְךָ מַצֵּבָה". וְכָל הַמֵּקִים מַצֵּבָה לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן אֶבֶן מַשְׂכִּית הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה עָלֶיהָ לַשֵּׁם לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כו א) "וְאֶבֶן מַשְׂכִּית לֹא תִתְּנוּ בְּאַרְצְכֶם לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת עָלֶיהָ" מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיָה דֶּרֶךְ עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים לְהַנִּיחַ אֶבֶן לְפָנֶיהָ לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת עָלֶיהָ. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין עוֹשִׂין כֵּן לַה'. וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפְשֹׁט יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו עַל הָאֶבֶן וְנִמְצָא כֻּלּוֹ מֻטָּל עָלֶיהָ שֶׁזּוֹ הִיא הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה: A monument which the Torah has forbidden is a structure around which people gather. [This prohibition applies] even [when it was constructed] for the service of God, because this is a pagan practice, as [Deuteronomy 16:22] states: "Do not erect a monument which God hates." Whoever erects a monument is [liable for] lashes.
Similarly, [a person who bows down on] the kneeling stone mentioned in the Torah receives lashes - even if he prostrates oneself upon it to God - as [Leviticus 26:1] states: "Do not place a kneeling stone in your land to prostrate yourself upon it." The pagans would customarily place a stone before a false deity so that they could prostrate themselves upon it. Therefore, this practice is not followed in the worship of God.
A person is not [liable for] lashes until he spreads out his hands and feet on the stone, thus prostrating himself on it entirely. This is what the Torah means by bowing.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּשְׁאָר (הָאֲרָצוֹת) אֲבָל בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ מֻתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּחֲווֹת עַל הָאֲבָנִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כו א) "בְּאַרְצְכֶם", בְּאַרְצְכֶם אִי אַתֶּם מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים עַל הָאֲבָנִים אֲבָל אַתֶּם מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים עַל הָאֲבָנִים הַמְפֻצָּלוֹת בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה נָהֲגוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַצִּיעַ מַחְצְלָאוֹת בְּבָתֵּי כְּנֵסִיּוֹת הָרְצוּפוֹת בַּאֲבָנִים אוֹ מִינֵי קַשׁ וְתֶבֶן לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין פְּנֵיהֶם וּבֵין הָאֲבָנִים. וְאִם לֹא מָצָא דָּבָר מַבְדִּיל בֵּינוֹ וּבֵין הָאֶבֶן הוֹלֵךְ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה אוֹ שׁוֹחֶה עַל צִדּוֹ וּמַטֶּה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַדְבִּיק פָּנָיו בָּאֶבֶן: Where does the [prohibition mentioned above] apply? Every place outside the Temple. In the Temple, however, it is permitted to bow down to God on stone.
This concept is derived as follows: [Leviticus, ibid.] states: "Do not place... in your land." "In your land," it is forbidden to prostrate oneself on stones. You may, however, prostrate yourself on hewn stones in the Temple.
For this reason, it is a universally accepted custom among the Jewish people to place mats, straw, or hay in synagogues that are paved with stones, to separate between their faces and the stones. If it is impossible to find anything to separate between them and the stones, the person should go to another place to prostrate himself, or lie on his side, so that he will not press his face to the stone.

כָּל הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לַה' עַל הָאֲבָנִים הַמְפֻצָּלוֹת בְּלֹא פִּשּׁוּט יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. אֲבָל לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אֶחָד הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה בְּפִשּׁוּט יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם אוֹ בְּלֹא פִּשּׁוּט יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁיִּכְבּשׁ פָּנָיו בַּקַּרְקַע נִסְקָל: A person who prostrates himself to God upon paved stones without spreading out his hands and feet is not [liable for] lashes. He is, however, punished by "blows for rebelliousness." In contrast, one who prostrates himself to a false deity should be stoned to death, whether or not he spreads out his hands and feet. As soon as he buries his face in the ground [he is liable].

הַנּוֹטֵעַ אִילָן אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אוֹ בְּכָל הָעֲזָרָה בֵּין אִילַן סְרָק בֵּין אִילַן מַאֲכָל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ לְנוֹי לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְיֹפִי לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טז כא) "לֹא תִטַּע לְךָ אֲשֵׁרָה כָּל עֵץ אֵצֶל מִזְבַּח ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ". מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיָה זֶה דֶּרֶךְ עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים נוֹטְעִין אִילָנוֹת בְּצַד מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁלָּהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְקַבְּצוּ שָׁם הָעָם: A person who plants a tree near the altar or anywhere in the Temple courtyard - regardless of whether it is a fruit-bearing tree or not - is [liable for] lashes, as [Deuteronomy 16:21] states: "Do not plant an asherah or any other tree near the altar of God, your Lord." [This prohibition applies] even when he did so to beautify the Temple and make it more attractive.
[The reason for this prohibition is] that this was a pagan practice. They would plant trees near their altars so that people would gather there.

אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת אַכְסַדְרָאוֹת שֶׁל עֵץ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בַּחֲצֵרוֹת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּבִנְיָן וְאֵינוֹ עֵץ נָטוּעַ הַרְחָקָה יְתֵרָה הִיא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טז כא) "כָּל עֵץ". אֶלָּא כָּל הָאַכְסַדְרָאוֹת וְהַסְּבָכוֹת הַיּוֹצְאוֹת מִן הַכְּתָלִים שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁל אֶבֶן הָיוּ לֹא שֶׁל עֵץ: It is forbidden to construct a porch made of wood in the Temple as one would do in one's courtyard. Even though [the wood would be affixed] within the structure and not planted within the ground. This is an extra restriction, as [implied by the words:] "any other tree" [in the verse cited above]. Instead, all the porches and structures which protruded from the walls within the sanctuary were of stone and not of wood.

מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה הִיא לְאַבֵּד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וּמְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ וְכָל הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּשְׁבִילָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב ב) "אַבֵּד תְּאַבְּדוּן אֶת כָּל הַמְּקוֹמֹת" וְנֶאֱמַר (דברים ז ה) "כִּי אִם כֹּה תַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם" וְגוֹ'. וּבְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִצְוָה לִרְדֹּף אַחֲרֶיהָ עַד שֶׁנְּאַבֵּד אוֹתָהּ מִכָּל אַרְצֵנוּ. אֲבָל בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ אֵין אָנוּ מְצֻוִּין לִרְדֹּף אַחֲרֶיהָ אֶלָּא כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְבּשׁ אוֹתוֹ נְאַבֵּד כָּל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁבּוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב ג) "וְאִבַּדְתֶּם אֶת שְׁמָם מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא". בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּה לִרְדֹּף אַחֲרֵיהֶן וְאִי אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּה לִרְדֹּף אַחֲרֵיהֶן בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ: It is a positive commandment¹Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 185) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 436) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. to destroy false deities,²The process of destruction is described in Chapter 8, Halachah 6.
all their accessories, and everything that is made for their purposes - Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) states that the mitzvah is to destroy "every entity which is worshiped and their temples," from which one might conclude that the destruction of the accessories of idol worship is a Rabbinic injunction. Avodat HaMelech, however, cites Avodah Zarah 51b, which also derives the injunction to destroy the accessories of idol worship from a Biblical proof-text. all their accessories, and everything that is made for their purposes, as [Deuteronomy 12:2] states: "You shall surely destroy all the places [where the gentiles... served their gods]"³Note the Bnei Binyamin, which states that when fulfilling this commandment, we should recite a blessing: "Blessed... who commanded us to eradicate idol worship from our land." Other commentaries explain that reciting a blessing is inappropriate, based on the principle (Rashba, Vol. I, Responsum 18) that a blessing is not recited for a mitzvah that comes to correct a sin. The Bnei Binyamin, however, maintains that this principle does not apply here, since the transgression was committed by gentiles. and, as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:5]: "Rather, what you should do to them is tear down their altars."
In⁴Kinat Eliyahu questions the purpose of the second proof-text. Eretz Yisrael, the mitzvah requires us to hunt after idol worship until it is eradicated from our entire land.⁵Kinat Eliyahu explains that this obligation has its source in the uniqueness of Eretz Yisrael. Because it is God's holy land, we must rid it of idol worship. In contrast, In the diaspora, however,⁶The obligation to destroy false deities is of a different nature. we are not required to hunt after it.⁷Since these lands are not holy, we are not obligated to eradicate idol worship from them. Rather, whenever we conquer a place, we must destroy all the false deities contained within.⁸because a false deity may not exist under a Jew's authority.
In his notes on the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:20), the Vilna Gaon explains that the Rambam's statements appear to mean that whenever the Jews conquer a land, they are obligated to destroy all false deities and their places of worship. These statements may, however, also be interpreted as meaning that whenever an individual finds or takes possession of a false deity, it must be destroyed.
[The source for this distinction is Deuteronomy 12:3, which] states: "And you shall destroy their name from this place,"⁹i.e., Eretz Yisrael. The opening verse of the Biblical passage cited states: "These are the statutes... you must heed... in the land that God... is giving you." [implying that] you are obligated to hunt false deities in Eretz Yisrael, but you are not obligated to do so in the diaspora.¹⁰The Bnei Binyamin writes that even according to the opinions which permit gentiles to believe in Christianity, Jews are obligated to destroy their objects of worship and churches. This raises a question regarding the churches that exist in Eretz Yisrael today. Should their existence be tolerated, or are we, as a people and as individuals, obligated to destroy them?

עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וּמְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ וְתִקְרֹבֶת שֶׁלָּהּ וְכָל הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּשְׁבִילָהּ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז כו) "וְלֹא תָבִיא תוֹעֵבָה אֶל בֵּיתֶךָ" וְכָל הַנֶּהֱנֶה בְּאֶחָד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. אַחַת מִשּׁוּם וְלֹא תָבִיא. וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם וְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה מִן הַחֵרֶם: It is forbidden to benefit from false deities,¹i.e., statues, trees, or other entities which are worshiped. their accessories, offerings for them,²The Rambam considers the prohibition against benefiting from wine offered as a libation for false deities as a mitzvah in its own right (Negative Commandment 194). Therefore, he does not mention the laws governing this prohibition here, but in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, where he devotes three chapters to the subject.
[The fact that the Rambam associates the prohibition against benefitting from objects offered to idols with a Biblical proof-text appears to indicate that he considers this prohibition as having its roots in the Torah itself. Note Tosafot, Bava Kama 72a which states that the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.] and anything made for them, as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:26]: "Do not bring an abomination to your³Note the Pri Chadash,who questions whether a person who brings a false deity home without benefiting from it also receives lashes. home."
Anyone who derives benefit⁴Yad HaMelech contrasts the prohibition against benefiting from false gods with other Torah prohibitions where benefit is forbidden: e.g., non-kosher species of animals. In the latter case, though all types of benefit are forbidden, the Torah requires that punishment be administered only for eating the forbidden substances, and not for deriving other types of benefit (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:16), while with regard to false deities, punishment is administered for deriving any type of benefit.
The source for this difference is that the Torah uses the expression "Do not eat" or the like when forbidding the other prohibitions. Accordingly, punishment is administered only for eating. In contrast, the verses prohibiting false deities are more inclusive in nature. from any of the above receives two measures of lashes: one because of the prohibition, "Do not bring an abomination...,"⁵Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 25) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 429) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. and one because of the prohibition, "Let nothing which is condemned cling to your hand."⁶As mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 7, the latter prohibition primarily concerns the property of a condemned city (עיר הנדחת). Nevertheless, since false deities are also described as "condemned," benefiting from them is also included in the scope of the above prohibition (Megillat Esther, Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 194).
Though the Ramban (Hasagot L'Sefer HaMitzvot) disputes the Rambam's decision, support for the Rambam's opinion can be found in several Talmudic sources - e.g., Avodah Zarah 34b, 51b.
The prohibition stated in this halachah and the positive commandment mentioned in the previous one serve as the foundation for all the laws discussed in this and the following chapter.

בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּהָ כֻּלָּהּ לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה אֲפִלּוּ פִּרְשָׁהּ וְעַצְמוֹתֶיהָ וְקַרְנֶיהָ וּטְלָפֶיהָ וְעוֹרָהּ הַכּל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה בָּעוֹר סִימָן שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ בּוֹ שֶׁזֶּה הָעוֹר תִּקְרֹבֶת עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הוּא כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹשִׂים שֶׁקּוֹרְעִים קֶרַע עָגֹל כְּנֶגֶד הַלֵּב וּמוֹצִיאִין הַלֵּב הֲרֵי כָּל אוֹתָן הָעוֹרוֹת שֶׁהֵן כָּךְ אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: It is forbidden¹because of the prohibition mentioned in the previous halachah. (See also Deuteronomy 32:38.) to benefit from an animal which was sacrificed to false deities in its entirety²The standard published text of the Mishneh Torah states שהקריבוה כולה לעכוóם - i.e., the phrase "in its entirety" modifies the verb "sacrifices," leading to the conclusion that were an animal to be consecrated only partially to a false deity different rules would apply. Note the Kessef Mishneh, Avodat HaMelech, and Or Sameach, which discuss this concept.
Authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah, however, read אסורה כולה - i.e., "in its entirety" modifies "forbidden." According to this version, the explanation is straightforward, when an animal is sacrificed to a false deity the prohibition includes - even its excrement, its bones, its horns, its hooves, and its hide.³i.e., the prohibition involves not only the animal's meat, but even these less important elements of its being. It is forbidden to benefit from it at all.
To cite an example, the hide of an animal which is marked by a sign that indicates that it was offered as a sacrifice to false deities⁴e.g., it has a round hole - if the hole is oblong, there is no prohibition (Avodah Zarah 2:3). - e.g., it has a round hole in the place of the heart through which the heart is extracted,⁵They would slit open the animal's hide and kill it by cutting out the heart (Keter HaMelech) which was a common practice [of idolaters]⁶when offering sacrifices (Avodah Zarah, ibid.): - It is forbidden to benefit from all of these hides and others of the like.⁷because we assume that the animal was used as a sacrifice to idols and is therefore forbidden.

מַה בֵּין עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁל עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁל עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה מִיָּד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז כה) "פְּסִילֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ" מִשֶּׁפְּסָלוֹ נַעֲשָׂה לוֹ אֱלוֹהַּ. וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה עַד שֶׁתֵּעֲבֵד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כז טו) "וְשָׂם בַּסָּתֶר" עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה לָהּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר שֶׁהֵן עֲבוֹדָתָהּ. וּמְשַׁמְּשֵׁי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים בֵּין שֶׁל עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים בֵּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָן אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים: What is the difference¹with regard to the prohibition mentioned in the previous law between an idol belonging to a gentile and one belonging to a Jew? It is forbidden to benefit from an idol belonging to a gentile immediately [after it is fashioned], as [implied by²the Torah's command to destroy idols Deuteronomy 7:25]: "You shall burn the sculptures of their gods with fire" - i.e.,³the mention of the word "sculptures" is an addition, teaching that they are considered gods as soon as they have been sculpted.⁴whether they have been worshiped or not. Therefore, they are forbidden from that time onward. Note the comments of the Lechem Mishneh, which mentions an apparent contradiction between these statements and Chapter 8, Halachah 8. (See our commentary on that halachah.)
[In contrast,] it is not forbidden to benefit from a Jew's [idol] until he worships it, as [implied by Deuteronomy 27:15]: "[Cursed is the person who makes an idol...] and places it in a hidden place"⁵When does the curse fall? Not when the idol is made, but when it is placed in a hidden place. - i.e., it is not forbidden until he does private acts⁶i.e., worship - for it is unlikely that a Jew would worship a false deity openly. - i.e., worship - on its behalf.⁷on its behalf.
The accessories of idol worship, whether belonging to a Jew or to a gentile, are not forbidden until they were actually used for the purpose of idol worship.⁸Avodah Zarah 51b derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 12:2, which states "You shall surely destroy all the places where the gentiles... served their gods." The gentiles' places of worship and the other accessories to idol worship are not forbidden until the false deities are "served."

הָעוֹשֶׂה עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים לַאֲחֵרִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה שְׂכָרוֹ מֻתָּר וַאֲפִלּוּ עֲשָׂאָהּ לְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָהּ נֶאֱסֶרֶת עַד שֶׁתִּגָּמֵר וּמַכּוֹשׁ אַחֲרוֹן שֶׁגּוֹמְרָהּ אֵין בּוֹ שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה. הַלּוֹקֵחַ גְּרוּטָאוֹת מִן הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וּמָצָא בָּהֶן עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. אִם נָתַן מָעוֹת וְלֹא מָשַׁךְ יַחֲזִירֵם לָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים. וְכֵן אִם מָשַׁךְ וְלֹא נָתַן מָעוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּשִׁיכָה בְּעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים קוֹנָה כְּמֶקַח טָעוּת הוּא. נָתַן מָעוֹת וּמָשַׁךְ יוֹלִיכֵם לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. וְכֵן עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וְגֵר שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ אֶת אֲבִיהֶן עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים יָכוֹל הַגֵּר לוֹמַר לְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים טֹל אַתָּה עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וַאֲנִי מָעוֹת. טֹל אַתָּה יֵין נֶסֶךְ וַאֲנִי פֵּרוֹת. וְאִם מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לִרְשׁוּת הַגֵּר אָסוּר: [When] a person makes an idol for another person - although he receives lashes - his wage is permitted.¹We do not say that the wage is benefit derived from false deities, and is therefore forbidden. [This applies] even when he made [the idol] for a gentile, and it is therefore forbidden immediately.²as explained in the previous halachah.
[What is the rationale for the latter decision? The idol] is not forbidden until it is completed and the hammer-stroke which completes it - See Shabbat 73a, 75b and commentaries regarding the final hammer-stroke which completes a project.
[What is the rationale for the latter decision? The idol] is not forbidden until it is completed and the hammer-stroke which completes it is not worth a penny.³Avodah Zarah 19b explains that this law is dependent on the following principle of business law: Every moment an artisan works on a project is considered as a separate entity. When he finishes the project, it is considered as if the entire sum of money - with the exception of the value of the final hammer-stroke - is owed him from beforehand. Since benefit from the idol is not forbidden until it is completed, the money which is owed him previously is permitted.
[The following rules apply when] a person buys scrap metal from a gentile⁴There is an apparent contradiction between the laws which follow and Halachah 7, which states that idols found in a scrap metal heap are permitted. Two possible resolutions are offered:a) According to the version (see our commentary on that halachah) which reads "statues" and not "statues of idols," there is no contradiction.b) The prohibitions mentioned in this halachah were instituted because of the appearance that might be created if the Jew were to keep the idols he purchased. Accordingly, stricter laws were instituted. and finds idols within it:⁵Once the Jew becomes the full legal owner of the idols, he is obligated to destroy them, and cannot nullify the transaction and return them. The question in the following instances is whether the transaction has been completed or not. If he has already paid the money, but has not taken possession⁶We have taken some liberty in translating the word, ומשך. Literally, it means "and drew it after him." Performing this activity, however, is one of the means of formalizing a business transaction (see Hilchot Mechirah 3:1) and, therefore, the word was translated as above. of it, he should return it to the gentile.⁷Though paying money represents the finalization of a transaction (kinyan) between a Jew and gentile (see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:14), the transaction was made in error, as explained below. Since, in transactions carried out between two Jews, the transaction would not be completed until the recipient takes possession of the article, a Jew can return the idols to the gentile in this instance. The same [rules] apply if he took possession of it, but did not pay the money. Though taking possession represents a formal transfer of ownership in dealings with a gentile,⁸See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah, ibid. the transaction was made in error.⁹Since, in transactions carried out between two gentiles, the transaction would not be completed until the money was paid, it can be nullified in this instance. If he paid the money and took possession [of the scrap],¹⁰even though the transaction was carried out in error, since it appears to have been completed, it is forbidden to benefit from the idols because of the impression it may create. Therefore, they must be destroyed (Avodah Zarah 53a, 71b). (See also Siftei Cohen 1464.)
Our commentary follows the interpretation of Rav Kapach. It must be noted that many of the classic commentaries on the Mishneh Torah have questioned why the Rambam mentions the concept of a transaction made in error only in the case when the Jew took possession and did not pay, but not when he paid and did not take possession. They have offered several possible resolutions, including a sweeping statement by Avodat HaMelech that our Sages nullified the effectiveness of monetary payment as an effective means of finalizing the transfer of property (kinyan), not only with regard to transactions between two Jews (see Hilchot Mechirah 3:1,4-5), but also with regard to transactions between a Jew and a gentile.
(Interestingly, though the Rambam's phraseology has raised such problems, it is quoted verbatim by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 146:3.)
When stating that a forbidden object must be destroyed, our Sages frequently used the expression: he must take [the idols] to the Dead Sea.¹¹Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 43b, explain that one need not literally take the idols to the Dead Sea. By using that term, our Sages implied a place where the idols will never benefit man. Similarly, the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 146) explains that the Dead Sea is mentioned because it is a desolate area, not frequented by ships. If an article is cast into that sea, we can assume that it will not be recovered.¹²Tosafot also relates that, in practice, one need not take the idols to the Dead Sea. All that is necessary is to destroy the article in a manner in which neither it, nor its ashes or dust, will benefit man. See also Chapter 8, Halachah 6.¹³[It must be noted that though the Rambam occasionally uses the term 18חלמהáםי to refer to the Mediterranean Sea (see the conclusion to his Commentary to the Mishnah), in this context, it is clear that his intent is the Dead Sea.]
Similarly, when a gentile and a convert [divide] the estate of their father¹⁴a gentile - The problem in this instance is that it is forbidden to exchange an idol for other property. Hence, before taking possession of the inheritance, - a gentile - the convert may tell the gentile, "Take the idols and I will take the money," "Take the forbidden wine and I will take the produce."¹⁵In which case, the idols have never come into the convert's possession and, hence, he is not considered to have benefited from their exchange. Once [idols] come into the possession of the convert, however,¹⁶they are considered to be idols belonging to a Jew, and
they are forbidden - and must be destroyed.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (D'mai 6:10), the Rambam writes that were a similar situation - an inheritance containing property from which one heir would be allowed to benefit from and one would be forbidden - to occur among Jews, the leniencies mentioned above would not be permitted.
The difference between the two cases is that when a Jew inherits property from his father, the transfer of ownership is immediate, and from the moment of his father's death, the forbidden property belongs to the heir, who must take responsibility for it. In contrast, a convert's inheritance of his gentile father's estate is a Rabbinic decree, instituted in consideration of the convert. According to the Torah, once he converts, he has no connection to his natural parents. The Sages extended the leniency they granted in allowing him to acquire the inheritance to include the right to barter these forbidden articles before they actually become his property. (See also Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 146:5. they are forbidden.

צוּרוֹת שֶׁעֲשָׂאוּם עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים לְנוֹי מֻתָּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה וְצוּרוֹת שֶׁעֲשָׂאוּם לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אֲסוּרִין. כֵּיצַד. כָּל הַצּוּרוֹת הַנִּמְצָאִים בַּכְּפָרִים אֲסוּרִים בַּהֲנָאָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֶזְקָתָן שֶׁלַּעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הֵן עֲשׂוּיִין, וְהַנִּמְצָאוֹת בַּמְּדִינָה אִם הָיוּ עוֹמְדִין עַל פֶּתַח הַמְּדִינָה וְהָיָה בְּיַד הַצּוּרָה צוּרַת מַקֵּל אוֹ צִפּוֹר אוֹ כַּדּוּר אוֹ סַיִף אוֹ עֲטָרָה וְטַבַּעַת חֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁהוּא לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי הוּא בְּחֶזְקַת לְנוֹי וּמֻתָּר: We are allowed to benefit¹i.e., enjoy the artistic talent and/or sell or use as scrap metal from images²The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 141) states that these laws apply only to human images. Other authorities (and indeed certain interpretations of the Tur) disagree, and consider the statements as referring to all images. From the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:1), it appears that the latter opinion reflects his view. which gentiles made for aesthetic purposes.³Note Chapter 3, Halachah 10, with regard to the prohibition against Jews making human images even for these purposes. See our commentary on that halachah, with regard to the place of art in Jewish life. It is forbidden, however, to benefit from images that are made for the purpose of idol worship.⁴even if they are artistic masterpieces. Thus, the entire realm of the gentile's sacramental art is forbidden to us.
What is implied?⁵The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 141:4) explains that the statements that follow (which are based on Avodah Zarah 41a) reflect the socio-cultural environment in which the Rambam lived. The criteria he mentions are thus not hard and fast rules, and will vary if different conditions prevail in other societies.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah, ibid., based on Avodah Zarah 40-41), the Rambam explains that although Rabbi Meir maintained that all gentile images were forbidden because they would be used for different pagan rites, the Sages disagreed and laid down the following general rules. It is forbidden to benefit from any images found in villages, for⁶Simple villagers are not expected to have artistic tastes. Therefore, one may assume that they were made for the sake of idol worship.⁷Even if we have no proof to that effect, we follow the general rule that it is forbidden to benefit from an image which is merely suspected of being worshiped as an idol. When images are found⁸even when the circumstances mentioned in the following halachah do not apply in a city,⁹Since the inhabitants of a metropolis are expected to be cultured and sophisticated, the images found there are not necessarily idols. Hence, they are forbidden only when they are found at the entrance to the city¹⁰a position which implies their authority over the entire city. and hold a staff, bird, globe, sword, crown, or ring in their hands.¹¹All of these are also symbols of authority or sovereignty. Otherwise, we may assume¹²The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 141:1, which frequently quotes the Rambam verbatim, changes the phraseology used in this clause from "we may assume" to "surely." The Siftei Cohen (141:1) explains that this change clarifies that even though it is forbidden to benefit from an image which is merely suspected to have been worshiped as an idol (see Halachah 10), our assumption that they were made for aesthetic purposes,¹³is so strong that this is not considered as a case of doubt and benefit from them is permitted.

צַלְמֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הַנִּמְצָאִים מֻשְׁלָכִים בַּשְּׁוָקִים אוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַגְּרוּטָאוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שִׁבְרֵי צַלְמֵיהֶן. אֲבָל הַמּוֹצֵא יָד מִצּוּרַת כּוֹכָב אוֹ מַזָּל אוֹ רַגְלָהּ אוֹ אֵיבָר מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ מֻשְׁלָךְ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה הוֹאִיל וְיָדַע בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁזֶּה הָאֵיבָר מִן צוּרַת עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הַנֶּעֱבֶדֶת הֲרֵי הִיא בְּאִסּוּרָהּ עַד שֶׁיִּוָדַּע לוֹ שֶׁהָעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים עוֹבְדֶיהָ בִּטְּלוּהָ: Statues of false deities¹Statues of false deities - Our text follows the published texts of the Mishneh Torah. The words "of false deities" and several of the other points in this halachah appear to be printer's additions, which are not found in the authoritative manuscripts and run contrary to the explanation of these concepts in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:2). Note also the apparent contradiction mentioned in our commentary on Halachah 5.
Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 141:2 does not mention "idols," but "statues." which are found discarded in the marketplace or in a scrap metal heap are permitted.²Avodah Zarah 41a-b explains this law as follows. The Mishnah uses the expression "statues" - i.e., a statue which we do not know that it has been worshiped. Shmuel, one of the Talmudic sages, adds, however, that the leniency also applies to idols which we know were worshiped.
His decision is based on the principle (Chapter 8, Halachah 8) that if the gentiles who worship an idol no longer consider it a god, the prohibition against benefiting from it is nullified. In this instance, the fact that these statues were found discarded is the clearest proof that their worshipers forsook them.
Afterwards, the Talmud quotes a difference of opinion between Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, concerning idols which are broken accidentally. In the context of the explanation of that difference of opinion, the Talmud mentions the explanation of the Mishnah in question by Rabbi Yochanan (whom the halachah follows, see Chapter 8, Halachah 11). He explains that the pieces of the statues (not idols) are permitted because we are not sure that they were ever worshiped. Even if they have been worshiped, it is possible that they were nullified.
Thus, according to the Talmud, the interpretation of these laws is as follows: If one finds an idol that was obviously purposefully broken (Shmuel's law), it is permitted to benefit from it. If, however, the idol was not destroyed with an obvious destructive intent, it is forbidden to benefit from it, as Rabbi Yochanan states. Needless to say, this applies to pieces of statues.³The fact that they were broken would appear to indicate that their worshipers nullified them.
In contrast, should one find a hand, a foot, or another limb from the form of one of the constellations or celestial signs - The phrase, "from the form of one of the constellations or celestial signs," is a printer's addition, which runs contrary to the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, ibid. This phrase implies that this clause refers to a limb broken from an idol. The authoritative manuscripts state "should one find a hand... which is the form of a deity."
In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam states that this clause (found both in the mishnah and in this halachah) does not refer to a limb that is broken from an idol, but rather to an instance where the limb itself is worshiped. The Rambam explains that since the previous clause states that broken limbs of statues are permitted, this clause must be speaking about a different concept.
In contrast, should one find a hand, a foot, or another limb from the form of one of the constellations or celestial signs, it is forbidden to benefit from it.⁴Though the fact that it was abandoned in a scrap heap could be considered as an indication that it was nullified, Since one knows that this limb is one of the images that is worshiped,⁵i.e., the prohibition against its use is firmly established, the prohibition against [benefiting from it] remains until one knows⁶i.e., it is established with equal certainty that the gentiles who worshiped it, nullified it.⁷at which point its use is no longer prohibited, as explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 8.

הַמּוֹצֵא כֵּלִים וַעֲלֵיהֶן צוּרַת חַמָּה וּלְבָנָה וּדְרָקוֹן. אִם הָיוּ כְּלֵי כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב אוֹ בִּגְדֵי שָׁנִי אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ חֲקוּקִים עַל הַנְּזָמִים וְעַל הַטַּבָּעוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין. וְעַל שְׁאָר הַכֵּלִים מֻתָּרִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֶזְקָתָן לְנוֹי. וְכֵן שְׁאָר הַצּוּרוֹת הַנִּמְצָאוֹת עַל כָּל הַכֵּלִים חֶזְקָתָן לְנוֹי וּמֻתָּרִין: [The following laws apply when] a person finds articles which have the form of the sun, the moon,¹As mentioned in the commentary on Chapter 3, Halachah 11, the Rambam writes in his Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 3:3:
This does not mean a sphere which represents the sun, or a hemisphere which represents the moon, but rather the images which the astrologers [i.e., those following Greek mythology] attribute to the stars... - e.g., Saturn is represented as a dark old man of venerable age, Venus is represented as a beautiful maiden adorned with gold, and the sun is represented as a king with a diadem sitting in a chariot.
The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 141:3) quotes this explanation as halachah. or a d'rakon²In his Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam describes this image as a fishlike man with fins and many scales, probably referring to the Greek god Neptune. Rashi, Avodah Zarah 42b, and others interpret the form as that of an animal similar to a serpent. Perhaps this term is the source for the word "dragon." upon them:³The question is whether these forms should be considered to be representations of deities (and hence, forbidden). If they are golden or silver objects, or silk garments,⁴i.e., objects of great value. or if these forms were engraved on a nose-ring or finger-ring,⁵Rings, in addition to their value, also are a symbol of subservience: a slave wears his master's ring. they are forbidden.⁶The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 141:3) mentions that even valuable objects are permitted if one is certain that they have never been used as articles of worship. If these forms are found on other articles, they are permitted,⁷The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah, ibid.) states the general rule: "If these articles are found on objects of value, they are forbidden. If they are found on articles of little worth, they are permitted." The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) mentions pots or kettles as examples of objects of little worth. since we may assume that they were made for aesthetic purposes.⁸The Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3:3) states that if we are certain that these images were made for the purposes of worship, the article is forbidden even if it is of little value. TheShulchan Aruch (ibid.) quotes this principle.
The Ramah states that since paganism is not common at present, we assume that these forms were made for artistic purposes. Hence, it is not forbidden to benefit from an article even if it contains pagan images. One may not, however, keep such an article in one's possession. He adds that even at present, certain individuals are stringent with themselves and do not benefit from an article containing the three forms mentioned above. Similarly, we may assume that any other form which is found on an article was intended for aesthetic purposes.⁹Avodah Zarah 42b asks rhetorically: "Are these the only forms that are worshiped?" and explains that it is possible that the other forms would also be worshiped, but they are generally not made for that purpose. In contrast, the three forms mentioned above are generally made for the purpose of worship. Therefore, [the articles] are permitted.

עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וּמְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ וְכָל הַתִּקְרֹבֶת שֶׁלָּהּ אוֹסְרִים בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן. כֵּיצַד. עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּצוּרוֹת שֶׁל נוֹי אֲפִלּוּ אַחַת בְּכַמָּה אֲלָפִים יוֹלִיךְ הַכּל לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. וְכֵן אִם נִתְעָרֵב כּוֹס שֶׁל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים בְּכַמָּה כּוֹסוֹת אוֹ חֲתִיכָה מִן הַבָּשָׂר (שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה) בְּכַמָּה חֲתִיכוֹת יוֹלִיךְ הַכּל לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. וְכֵן עוֹר לָבוּב שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּכַמָּה עוֹרוֹת הַכּל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. עָבַר וּמָכַר עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אוֹ אֶחָד מִמְּשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ אוֹ תִּקְרֹבֶת שֶׁלָּהּ הֲרֵי הַדָּמִים אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה וְאוֹסְרִין בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן כַּעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז כו) "וְהָיִיתָ חֵרֶם כָּמֹהוּ" כָּל מַה שֵּׁאַתָּה מֵבִיא מֵעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וּמִכָּל מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ וְתִקְרָבְתָּהּ הֲרֵי הִיא כָּמוֹהָ: A false deity, its accessories, and the objects offered to it¹Avodah Zarah 29b derives the prohibition against benefiting from wine used by pagans as a libation (yayin nesech) from the prohibition against benefiting from animals sacrificed to idols. Since the mishnah (Avodah Zarah 74a) specifically mentions yayin nesech as forbidden, regardless of the proportion of the mixture involved, the same principle applies to all objects offered to an idol. are always forbidden, regardless of the proportion [of a mixture they make up].²As mentioned in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, Chapter 16, the prohibition against benefiting from different substances can be negated when the substance is accidentally mixed with other substances. For example, the prohibition against eating certain forbidden foods (e.g., non-kosher meat, fats, mixtures of meat and milk) is lifted when these substances become mixed with 60 times their amount of other substances. The prohibitions against terumah (and any other substances which are also called terumah) are lifted when it becomes mixed with 100 times their amount of other substances and similarly, the prohibitions against orlah and kilai hakerem are lifted when these substances are mixed with 200 times their amount of other substances.
Because of the serious nature of the prohibition against idol worship, these principles do not apply and anything connected with it is forbidden, regardless of the proportion of the mixture the forbidden substances make up. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 5:8.)
What is implied? If an idol becomes mixed together with statues made for aesthetic purposes³which are permitted - even if the proportion is merely one in several thousand⁴the entire group must be taken to the Dead Sea - i.e., it is forbidden to benefit from them and they must be destroyed. - the entire group must be taken to the Dead Sea. Similarly, if a goblet [used for] idol worship⁵i.e., an accessory of idol worship becomes mixed together with many other⁶identical goblets,⁷Needless to say, if one can distinguish between the forbidden goblet and the permitted ones, there is no reason to forbid the use of the permitted ones. or a piece of meat [coming from a sacrifice to a false deity] becomes mixed with other meat,⁸See the following halachah. the entire group must be taken to the Dead Sea.⁹TheLechem Mishneh (noting the Rambam's statements, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:29) questions why in this instance, the Rambam does not suggest that the entire mixture be sold to a gentile, and then, the value of the forbidden article destroyed. This question is discussed by many commentaries; their consensus is that, although such a provision is made regarding closed barrels of yayin nesech, it applies in that specific case alone, but not with regard to other instances. Similarly, if a hide with a hole through which the heart was removed¹⁰i.e., a round hole, as mentioned in Halachah 3. This was one of the common practices of idol worship. becomes mixed with other hides, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire mixture.¹¹and it must be destroyed.
[When] a person - i.e., a Jew. Different laws apply regarding a gentile. (See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 132:7, 144:1.)
[When] a person transgresses and sells a false deity, one of its accessories, or an object that was offered to it,¹²The sale is forbidden, because it is forbidden to derive any benefit from a false deity. This prohibition is unique; whenever one sells other forbidden substances (with the exception of the fruits of the seventh year), the fact that their sale was forbidden does not affect the status of the money received for them. In contrast, when selling anything forbidden because of idol worship it is forbidden to benefit from the money received,¹³Rather, the money must be destroyed, like the idols themselves. If the proceeds from the sale or exchange of an idol are used to acquire another object, that object is also forbidden. See Chapter 8, Halachah 1. and that prohibition [remains if these funds become mixed with others], regardless of the proportion [of the mixture] they make up.¹⁴i.e., the same severe restrictions that would apply to an idol itself, apply to the money received from its sale.
This principle is derived as follows: [Deuteronomy 7:26] states:¹⁵"Do not bring an abomination (an idol) into your house... "Lest you become condemned like it." [From this¹⁶The Hebrew word והיה
we - Avodah Zarah 54b

infer] that anything that comes - into your possession
from a false deity, from any of its accessories, or from [anything] offered to it - See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 132:5-7, which elaborates on this concept with regard to the laws pertaining to yayin nesech.
is [governed by the same prohibitions] as it is. - Note the commentary of Mishneh LaMelech, which questions whether the same ruling would be rendered if the purchaser did not know that the article which he acquired is connected with a false deity. Mishneh LaMelech maintains that the transaction is nullified, and the money the seller receives must be returned to the purchaser. we infer,] that anything that comes from a false deity, from any of its accessories, or from [anything] offered to it is [governed by the same prohibitions] as it is.

עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אוֹ אֲשֵׁרָה שֶׁנִּשְׂרְפָה אֶפְרָהּ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. וְגַחֶלֶת שֶׁל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אֲסוּרָה וְהַשַּׁלְהֶבֶת מֻתֶּרֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מַמָּשׁ. סְפֵק עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אָסוּר, סְפֵק סְפֵקָהּ מֻתָּר. כֵּיצַד. כּוֹס שֶׁל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁנָּפַל בְּאוֹצָר מָלֵא כּוֹסוֹת כֻּלָּן אֲסוּרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְכָל מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ אוֹסְרִין בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן. פֵּרַשׁ כּוֹס אֶחָד מִן הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת וְנָפַל לְכוֹסוֹת שְׁנַיִם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. טַבַּעַת שֶׁל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּכַמָּה טַבָּעוֹת וְנָפְלוּ שְׁתַּיִם מֵהֶן לַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל הֻתְּרוּ כֻּלָּן שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר אוֹתָהּ הַטַּבַּעַת הָיְתָה בִּכְלַל הַשְּׁתַּיִם. נִתְעָרְבָה בְּמֵאָה וְנִתְחַלְּקוּ אַרְבָּעִים לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד וְשִׁשִּׁים לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר וְנָפְלוּ הָאַרְבָּעִים כֻּלָּן לְטַבָּעוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרוֹת שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר אוֹתָהּ הַטַּבַּעַת הָאֲסוּרָה בָּרֹב הִיא. נָפְלוּ הַשִּׁשִּׁים לְטַבָּעוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת כֻּלָּן אֲסוּרוֹת: When a false deity or an asherah¹For a definition of the term asherah, see Chapter 6, Halachah 9, and see the following halachah. is burned, it is forbidden to²to be used for any other purpose. benefit from its ashes.³Ash was used for certain purposes - e.g., the manufacture of soap.
Although the idol was destroyed, the prohibition that applied to it applies to its ashes as well. (For this reason, our Sages suggested taking idols to the Dead Sea. Since this is a desolate area, there is little likelihood that anyone will ever benefit from the idols.)
Temurah 34a notes that this prohibition differentiates substances associated with idols from other forbidden substances that must be burned. A coal taken from⁴a fire which is lit as an act of service to an idol⁵is considered to be an accessory of the idol. is forbidden; a flame [from an idol] is permitted,⁶to be used - e.g., to light another flame for it is not an entity with substance.⁷i.e., there is no entity to which the prohibition can be attached. Although as a safeguard, the Rabbis forbade the use of certain flames, they did not pass such a decree against flames from idol worship. In general, Jews were repelled by any association with idol worship. Hence, the Rabbis did not feel that it was necessary to institute a prohibition (Beitzah 39a).
When there is a doubt whether an object is connected to idol worship or not, it is forbidden.⁸When there is a doubt regarding whether a substance is prohibited or not, we follow the principle that מדאורייתא (according to Torah law), it is permitted. מדרבנן (according to Rabbinic decree), it is forbidden. If, however, that doubt is questionable,⁹The Hebrew, ספק ספיקא, implies that there is a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply, as illustrated by the examples mentioned in the latter clauses of the halachah.
The prohibition against benefiting from an object whose prohibited status is in question is only Rabbinic in nature. Whenever there is a doubt regarding whether a Rabbinic prohibition applies or not, a lenient approach is permitted (ספק דרבנן לקולא). it is permitted.¹⁰For the Rabbis did not feel it necessary to institute a decree in such an instance.
What is implied? Should a goblet used for idol worship¹¹i.e., an accessory of idol worship, which is forbidden, as mentioned in the previous halachah. fall into a storage room of¹²identical goblets, they are all forbidden, because a false deity and all its accessories are always forbidden, regardless of the proportion [of a mixture they make up].¹³Since there is a doubt whether each of the goblets is the forbidden one or not, none of them may be used. If one of the cups from this mixture falls together with two¹⁴This translation follows the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah, which reads כוסות שנים. The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1406) suggests (and indeed, many manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah support this contention) that the text read כוסות שניים, which would be rendered as "other cups." This version is closer to the text of Zevachim 74a, the Talmudic passage that serves as the source for this law. other cups,¹⁵Here, there is a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply. Perhaps the cup one chooses from the new mixture did not come from the original mixture. Even if it did come from the original mixture, perhaps it is not the cup that was used for idol worship. the the [entire second mixture] is permitted.¹⁶The Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries question the Rambam's decision, noting that the text of Zevachim, ibid., appears to indicate that it is necessary for there to be three mixtures. Indeed, in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:10, when discussing the prohibitions of a דבר חשוב (a forbidden substance whose importance prevents it from ever being nullified in a mixture), the Rambam himself appears to follow this view, stating:
If one pomegranate from a mixture [containing a forbidden pomegranate] falls together with two other pomegranates... and from these three, one pomegranate falls together with other pomegranates, the latter [mixture] is permitted.
Indeed, on the basis of the statements in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 140) deviates from the Rambam's opinion and requires three mixtures.
This approach, however, is not followed by all commentaries. Rashi and Tosafot (Zevachim, ibid.) explain that even with regard to a דבר חשוב, only two mixtures are necessary. These views are quoted as halachah by the Turei Zahav and the Siftei Cohen in their glosses on the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 110:8).
Among the suggestions made by the commentaries to resolve the difference between the Rambam's statements here and those in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot are the following:a) Most people are careful regarding the prohibition against benefiting from any object connected with idol worship. Therefore, there is no need to reinforce the prohibition. In contrast, the prohibition against benefiting from a דבר חשוב is far less known. Hence, the Rabbis added severe safeguards to make sure that it be observed (Kessef Mishneh).b) Here, the Rambam is speaking about a prohibition against benefiting from a forbidden object (איסור הנאה). In contrast, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot is concerned with partaking of forbidden foods, where the prohibition is more severe (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 110:52).
Even the authorities who permit the second mixture to be used do not allow a single individual to partake of the entire mixture at one time. In such an instance, there would be only a single doubt whether he used the forbidden object or not.
The Rabbis (Zevachim, 74b) mentioned another example of a mixture which is permitted because of circumstances which create a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply:
Should a ring [used to adorn] an idol become mixed together with one hundred other rings, and - they would thus all be forbidden according to the above principles. However, if
then two of them fall - accidentally. If one intentionally throws one into the sea, the leniency does not apply (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 110:7).
into the Mediterranean Sea - and are thus lost. If two merely become separated from the group, the others remain prohibited (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.). (Note the Kessef Mishneh's comments that here, the Dead Sea is intended.)
it is permissible to use all of them. - i.e., all the rings that remain. The prohibition does not continue to apply, because
We presume that the [forbidden] ring was among the two - The Kessef Mishneh notes that when stating a similar law in Hilchot Terumah 15:2, the Rambam required only a single barrel of wine to be lost. The difference between these two laws can be resolved by taking into account the nature of the prohibited substances: Rings are small, and the loss of a single ring does not make a substantial difference to the entire group. In contrast, barrels of wine are large, and the loss of even one will attract attention.
[which fell]. - The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 140) limits this leniency, stating that it is forbidden to use a single ring alone, nor may one person benefit from the entire group of rings at once.
The Rabbis (Zevachim, ibid.) mentioned a third example of a mixture which is permitted because of circumstances which create a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply:
Should [a forbidden ring] become mixed together with a hundred others and - they would thus be forbidden according to the above principles. However, if
then [the group] becomes divided, forty - i.e., the minority
being separated in one group, and sixty - i.e., the majority
in another, and then the entire [group of] forty fall into another group of rings, it is permissible to use all of them - the second mixture.
We presume that the forbidden ring remained among the majority. - There is a doubt whether the forbidden ring was among the forty. Even if it had been included within that forty, perhaps the ring one chooses from the second mixture is not the forbidden one.
In this instance, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 140) does not accept the Rambam's view, and forbids the second mixture. Even according to the Rambam, it is not permissible to eat the entire second mixture at one time, for then there would be only a single doubt.
If the - entire
[group of] sixty fall into another group of rings, they are all forbidden. - Should, however, only a portion of the sixty fall into another mixture, the Rambam (but not the Shulchan Aruch) would permit their use. In such an instance, their status would parallel that of the second mixture of goblets mentioned above.
Should a ring [used to adorn] an idol become mixed together with one hundred other rings, and then two of them fall into the Mediterranean Sea, it is permissible to use all of them. We presume that the [forbidden] ring was among the two [which fell].
Should [a forbidden ring] become mixed together with a hundred others and then [the group] becomes divided, forty being separated in one group and sixty in another, and then the entire [group of] forty fall into another group of rings, it is permissible to use all of them. We presume that the forbidden ring remained among the majority. If the [group of] sixty fall into another group of rings, they are all forbidden.

הָאֲשֵׁרָה בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה נֶעֱבֶדֶת בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים מֻנַּחַת תַּחְתֶּיהָ אָסוּר לֵישֵׁב בְּצֵל קוֹמָתָהּ. וּמֻתָּר לֵישֵׁב בְּצֵל הַשָּׂרִיגִים וְהֶעָלִים שֶׁלָּהּ. וְאִם יֵשׁ לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ אַחֶרֶת אָסוּר לוֹ לַעֲבֹר תַּחְתֶּיהָ. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם דֶּרֶךְ אַחֶרֶת עוֹבֵר תַּחְתֶּיהָ כְּשֶׁהוּא רָץ: Sitting under the shade of the trunk of an asherah¹a tree associated with the worship of false deities - whether it is worshiped itself²as mentioned in Chapter 8, Halachah 3. or whether an idol was placed under it³as mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 9, and Chapter 8, Halachah 4. In such instances, the tree was intended for aesthetic purposes and for offering shade to the worshipers. - is forbidden. It is, however, permissible to sit under the shade of its branches and its leaves.
If a person has another route, it is forbidden⁴because one will be deriving benefit from a false deity or its accessories.
It is, however, permissible to sit under the shade of its branches and its leaves. - This decision has been questioned by other authorities, who wonder why the Rambam distinguished between the tree's trunk and branches. On the surface, the same prohibition should apply to both of them.
The Rambam's decision is based on his interpretation of Avodah Zarah 48b, which is derived from the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3:8). The Talmud explains that even though the shade of an asherah is forbidden, צל הצל, literally, "the shade of its shade," is permitted. The Jerusalem Talmud interprets 18לצ לצה as shade produced by the parts of the tree which would not touch the trunk if they fell.
[Rashi offers a different interpretation of Avodah Zarah, ibid. His view is accepted by most commentaries. When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 142:9) does not differentiate between the shade produced by the trunk and that of its leaves.
If a person has another route - to reach his desired destination, which is no longer than the one which passes under the asherah. If the alternate route is longer, the person is not required to deviate from the path leading under the asherah (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.). for him to pass under it.⁵This prohibition appears to have been instituted lest one benefit from the tree's shade. Note, however, the Ramah's statements (Yoreh De'ah, ibid.), which permit one to pass under the asherah's shade, though not under the tree itself. According to his opinion, the prohibition stems from the impurity of idol worship. If he has no other route, he may pass under it, provided he runs.⁶Avodah Zarah (ibid.) relates that Rav Sheshet would run when he passed under an asherah. This Talmudic passage mentions the requirement to run only with regard to a person of distinction. Nevertheless, since there is no great difficulty in running for this short distance, the Rambam imposes this stringency on all people (Kessef Mishneh).

אֶפְרוֹחִים שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בָּהּ וְאֵין צְרִיכִין לְאִמָּן מֻתָּרִין. וְהָאֶפְרוֹחִים וְהַבֵּיצִים שֶׁצְּרִיכִין לְאִמָּן אֲסוּרִין שֶׁהֲרֵי הָאֲשֵׁרָה כְּמוֹ בָּסִיס לָהֶן. וְהַקֵּן עַצְמָהּ שֶׁבְּרֹאשָׁהּ מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹף מֵבִיא עֵצָיו מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר: Chicks which do not need their mother and nest in [an asherah] are permitted.¹Even though these chicks are permitted, Me'ilah 14a does not allow one to climb up the tree and take them in a normal manner. Rather, one must knock the chicks down with a stave, and then collect them. The Hagahot Maimoniot (and the Turei Zahav, Yoreh De'ah 142:12) explain that climbing on the tree or using it as support for a ladder would involve deriving benefit from the forbidden tree.
The Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Me'ilah 3:9, suggests a different interpretation. There, the Rambam specifically writes that when taking the nest - as stated in the final clause of this halachah - it permissible to climb up the tree in the normal manner. Therefore, it appears that one should knock down the chicks to see if they are capable of flying on their own or not. This explanation also clarifies why the Rambam does not mention in this halachah the need to knock down the chicks. By stating that only those which do not need their mother are permitted, he implies that one must determine whether or not the chicks need their mother (Rav Kapach). In contrast, the chicks and eggs which need their mother are forbidden for the asherah is considered as if it is a base for them.²Avodah Zarah 42b explains that this is a Rabbinic decree imposed lest the people desire to benefit from the asherah itself. Since these chicks and eggs require the asherah, they are prohibited as the asherah is. The nest itself³[even though it is] in the top of the tree - is permitted, - and the wood from which it is composed may be used for other purposes - [even though it is] in the top of the tree - is permitted, for the birds bring the wood for it from other places.⁴Were the wood, however, to come from the asherah itself, it would be forbidden even though it had been separated from it already, as is obvious from Chapter 8, Halachah 3.
The Ra'avad states that one must explicitly know that the birds built their nest from other wood. Avodat HaMelech explains that the Rambam does not require such knowledge, because of the following Talmud principle: When there is a question whether a substance came from the most probable source (רוב) or the closest source (קרוב), we presume it came from the most probable source.

נָטַל מִמֶּנָּה עֵצִים אֲסוּרִים בַּהֲנָאָה. הֵסִיק בָּהֶן אֶת הַתַּנּוּר יוּצָן וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַסִּיק בְּעֵצִים אֲחֵרִים שֶׁל הֶתֵּר וְיֹאפֶה בּוֹ. אָפָה בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת וְלֹא צִנְּנוֹ הַפַּת אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה. נִתְעָרְבָה בַּאֲחֵרוֹת יוֹלִיךְ דְּמֵי אוֹתָהּ הַפַּת לְיָם הַמֶּלַח כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֵהָנֶה בָּהּ וּשְׁאָר הַכִּכָּרוֹת מֻתָּרִין: It is forbidden to benefit from wood which one takes from it. Should a person have heated the oven with such wood,¹and thus seek to benefit from the forbidden wood, he is not permitted to use the oven. Rather, he must cool it off.²Note the contrast between the Rambam's statements here and those in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:22, where the Rambam states that if an oven is heated with the shells or peels of fruit which is forbidden (because it is either orlah or kil'ei hakerem), it is sufficient to remove the wood which is burning. The coals and the heat produced by the initial fire, however, are not forbidden and one may bake with them. He does not make such statements here, because, as stated in Halachah 10, even the coals and ashes of an asherah are forbidden.
[Curiously, when mentioning these laws in the Shulchan Aruch (142:4), Rav Yosef Karo quotes the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, substituting forbidden wood for orlah, without distinguishing between the different prohibitions. Accordingly the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch (Turei Zahav 145:5, Siftei Cohen 145:10) object to his decision.] Afterwards, he should³remove the forbidden wood and kindle it with other, permitted, wood and then bake within.⁴In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:9), the Rambam explains that the above decision applies whether the oven is new or old.
The Mishnah states that if such wood is used in a new oven, the oven may never be used again. In Talmudic times, the ovens were made of clay and the clay would not harden sufficiently until the oven was kindled once. Thus, since kindling the oven for the first time prepared it to be used on all subsequent occasions, some Rabbis forbade its use when this first kindling was made with a forbidden substance. This opinion is, nevertheless, not accepted as halachah. The Rambam's view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, ibid. (See the explanation of זה וזה גורם in the following halachah.)
Furthermore, this prohibition is extended beyond the oven:
Should he bake bread in [an oven heated in this manner] without cooling it,⁵even if, afterwards, he added permitted wood he is forbidden to benefit from the bread.⁶because the beneficial effect of the forbidden wood preceded the influence of the permitted wood. If [such a loaf] became mixed together with others,⁷the entire mixture is forbidden. He can, however, cause that prohibition to be lifted if he carries out the following instructions.
[This mixture of bread can be differentiated from the mixtures mentioned in Halachah 10. Those mixtures involved objects which were themselves used as accessories for idol worship, while here the loaf itself was never used for such purposes. Hence, the severe laws mentioned there do not apply in this instance.] he must bring the value of that loaf⁸even if it is more valuable than the wood (Siftei Cohen 142:9). to the Dead Sea⁹or destroy it in another way (see the notes on Halachah 5) so that he will never benefit from it.¹⁰The Siftei Cohen 142:8 states that the Rambam's [and, thus, the Shulchan Aruch's (Yoreh De'ah 142:3)] phraseology implies that it is not sufficient to destroy the value of the wood (regardless of whether the forbidden loaf becomes mixed with others or not). He does, however, suggest selling the loaf to a gentile (less the value of the forbidden wood) in a manner in which one could be sure that it would not be resold to a Jew. The other loaves, however, are permitted.¹¹even to be eaten. In other similar situations, one is permitted to benefit from a forbidden mixture (e.g., sell it to a gentile), but partaking of it oneself is prohibited. (See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:29.) Here, one is allowed to partake of the bread itself (Siftei Cohen 142:10).

נָטַל מִמֶּנָּה כַּרְכַּר וְאָרַג בּוֹ אֶת הַבֶּגֶד אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. נִתְעָרֵב בִּבְגָדִים אֲחֵרִים יוֹלִיךְ דְּמֵי אוֹתוֹ הַבֶּגֶד לְיָם הַמֶּלַח וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַבְּגָדִים מֻתָּרִין. וּמֻתָּר לִטַּע תַּחְתֶּיהָ יְרָקוֹת בֵּין בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה שֶׁהֵן צְרִיכִין לְצֵל. בֵּין בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצֵּל הָאֲשֵׁרָה שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר עִם הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁאֵינָהּ נֶאֱסֶרֶת גּוֹרְמִין לִירָקוֹת אֵלּוּ לִצְמֹחַ וְכָל שֶׁדָּבָר אָסוּר וְדָבָר מֻתָּר גּוֹרְמִין לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בְּכָל מָקוֹם. לְפִיכָךְ שָׂדֶה שֶׁזִּבְּלָהּ בְּזֶבֶל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים מֻתָּר לִזְרֹעַ אוֹתָהּ. וּפָרָה שֶׁפִּטְּמָהּ בְּכַרְשִׁינֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים תֵּאָכֵל וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: If one took [a piece of wood from an asherah to use as] a shuttle,¹the piece of the loom which passes the woof through the threads of the warp. and wove a garment with it, it is forbidden to benefit from [the garment].²because it is prohibited to use anything made from idol worship. Should the garment become mixed together with other garments, he must bring the value of that garment to the Dead Sea.³Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:9), where he explains why it is necessary to state both cases (the bread and the garment). All the other garments, however, are permitted.⁴as explained in the previous halachah. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 142:3.)
It is permissible⁵לכתחילה (a priori) to plant vegetables under [an asherah] - whether in the summer⁶when they need the shade - and thus, one will receive direct benefit from the asherah - when they need the shade - or in the winter.⁷when the influence of the asherah is less felt. [This leniency is granted] because the vegetables' growth is produced by two factors: the shade of the asherah, which is forbidden, and the earth, which is permitted.⁸We follow a principle that is employed in many other areas of Torah law: Whenever an effect is produced by the combination of a forbidden factor and a permitted factor, it is permitted.⁹In such instances, the leniency is generally granted only בדיעבד (after the fact). In this situation, however, the leniency is granted a priori, because the person does not receive any benefit when he sows the field and, afterwards, the benefit comes in and of itself (Rabbenu Nissim). Therefore, if a field was fertilized with fertilizer [that was forbidden because of a connection with] idol worship, one may sow it.¹⁰because the crop growth also depends on the earth, which is not forbidden. At the outset, however, it is forbidden to use such fertilizer (Siftei Cohen 142:11). Similarly, [the meat of] a cow that was fed with beans¹¹The Hebrew term כרשינים refers to "vetch," a species of bean commonly used for animal fodder. [that were forbidden because of a connection with] idol worship, may be eaten.¹²because its growth was also influenced by the permitted food it ate. If, however, it was raised solely on forbidden food, different rules apply (Turei Zahav 142:17).
[Significantly, in Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 3:9, the Rambam feels it necessary to give a different reason why a cow that was given such a diet might be used as a sacrifice. The Sages, however, always ruled more stringently with regard to sacrifices than with regard to food consumed by private individuals.] The same principle applies in other similar situations.

בָּשָׂר אוֹ יַיִן אוֹ פֵּרוֹת שֶׁהֱכִינוּם לְהַקְרִיבָם לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים לֹא נֶאֶסְרוּ בַּהֲנָאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִכְנִיסוּם לְבֵית עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיבוּם לְפָנֶיהָ. הִקְרִיבוּם לְפָנֶיהָ נַעֲשׂוּ תִּקְרֹבֶת וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזְרוּ וְהוֹצִיאוּם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין לְעוֹלָם. וְכָל הַנִּמְצָא בְּבֵית עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אֲפִלּוּ מַיִם וּמֶלַח אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְהָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה: It is not forbidden to benefit from meat, wine, and fruits that were prepared as offerings for idols. Although they were brought into the temple of a false deity, [they are not prohibited] until they are actually brought as offerings.¹However, as is obvious from the latter clause of this halachah, an object found in a temple of a false deity is forbidden, unless we have explicit knowledge that it was not brought as an offering. We assume that it was used for this forbidden purpose.
Once they are brought as offerings, [their status changes] and they remain forbidden - as stated in Halachah 2
Once they are brought as offerings, [their status changes] and they remain forbidden forever,²Avodat HaMelech interprets this as a reference to Chapter 8, Halachah 9, where the Rambam states that the prohibition against using an offering brought to an idol can never be nullified. Although the prohibition against using an idol itself can be nullified, more stringent rules apply with regard to an offering. even if they were later removed [from the temple].³The change in their location does not effect a change in status.
Torah law - not merely Rabbinic decree
Torah law forbids benefiting from anything that is found in a temple of a false deity, even water or salt.⁴See the following halachah. (Also note Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 139:3.) If a person eats even the slightest amount from such substances, he is [punished by] lashing.⁵Note Halachah 2, where the Rambam states that a person who benefits from offerings brought to a false deity receives a double measure of lashes. Apparently, the Rambam is not explicit here because he is relying on this previous statement.

הַמּוֹצֵא כְּסוּת וְכֵלִים וּמָעוֹת בְּרֹאשׁ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. אִם מְצָאָן דֶּרֶךְ בִּזָּיוֹן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין וְאִם מְצָאָן דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין. כֵּיצַד. מָצָא כִּיס תָּלוּי בְּצַוָּארוֹ. כְּסוּת מְקֻפֶּלֶת וּמֻנַּחַת עַל רֹאשׁוֹ. כְּלִי כָּפוּי עַל רֹאשׁוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא דֶּרֶךְ בִּזָּיוֹן וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. מָצָא בְּרֹאשׁוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁמְּצָאָן חוּץ לִמְקוֹם עֲבוֹדָתוֹ אֲבָל אִם מְצָאוֹ בִּפְנִים בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ בִּזָּיוֹן בֵּין דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ בֵּין דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי כָּל הַנִּמְצָא בִּפְנִים אָסוּר אֲפִלּוּ מַיִם וּמֶלַח. וּפְעוֹר וּמַרְקוּלִיס כָּל הַנִּמְצָא עִמָּהֶן בֵּין בִּפְנִים בֵּין בַּחוּץ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. וְכֵן אַבְנֵי מַרְקוּלִיס אֶבֶן הַנִּרְאֵית שֶׁהִיא עִמּוֹ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה: [The following laws apply when] a person finds garments, utensils, or money [placed] on the head of an idol.¹Avodah Zarah 51b states that the prohibition applies only when the articles are placed on the idol itself. The fact that they are positioned near the idol is not sufficient to have them forbidden. If he finds them [placed] in a derisive manner, they are permitted.²because the manner in which they are placed indicates that they were not intended as adornment or service for the idol. If he finds them [placed] in a deferential manner, they are forbidden.³Avodah Zarah, ibid., derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 29:16: "You saw their putridities (their idols)... the gold and silver which is with them," explaining that "anything which is 'with them' is 'putrid,' forbidden as the idols are. Since these are articles that are used to adorn an idol, they are prohibited.
What is implied? If one finds a purse hanging around its neck, folded garments placed on its head, or a utensil overturned on its head, they are permitted, because [they were placed] in a derisive manner.⁴The position of the article indicates that it was not placed there with the intent of adorning the idol. On the contrary, placing these articles on an idol in such a fashion reflects one's contempt for it. Therefore, there is no reason for the article to be forbidden. The same applies to other similar situations. [In contrast,] if one finds an object of a type which is used as an offering for the [Temple] altar⁵This includes the animals used as sacrifices, wine, flour, or oil. Avodah Zarah 51b notes that this prohibition includes even water, which is used for the water libation on Sukkot, and salt, which is added to all the sacrifices offered on the altar. on the head [of an idol], it is forbidden.⁶The fact that these articles are used as offerings in the Temple leads to the conclusion that they were presented to the idol for a similar purpose.
When does the above - distinction between a deferential and a derisive position
When does the above apply? When one finds such articles outside its⁷the idol's [usual] place of worship. When, however, one finds such articles within the [idol's place of worship],⁸The fact that the article was brought into the idol's temple indicates that it was used in its service. Accordingly, regardless of whether it was placed in a derisive manner or in a deferential manner, or whether it is of the type of objects used as sacrifices for the [Temple] altar, any article found within [such a structure]⁹even if it is not placed upon the idol itself - even water or salt¹⁰The Rambam's mention of these articles is somewhat problematic. Since they were offered on the Temple altar, as explained above, they are forbidden even if they are not found within the temple of an idol. The commentaries explain that since these articles are of little consequence and are not generally themselves brought as offerings to an idol, we would not think that they were forbidden. Therefore, it is necessary to mention them explicitly. - becomes forbidden.¹¹Note Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ot 6:7, where the Rambam states that the forbidden nature of foods offered to idols can never be negated. When, however, utensils are offered, the prohibition against using them can be negated, as explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 8.
[Different laws apply regarding] Pe'or and Marculis. - See the description of the service of these deities in Chapter 3, Halachah 2.
[Different laws apply regarding] Pe'or and Marculis. It is forbidden to benefit from anything that is found together with them, whether [it is found] in their [temple] or outside of it.¹²Since these deities are served in a derisive manner, no distinction is made between the manner in which articles placed upon them are found. Even when an article is found in a derisive position, it is forbidden. Similarly, with regard to the stones [found near a symbol of] Marculis: If a stone appears to be together with it,¹³Since a shrine to this deity consists of stones piled on each other, we assume that any stone found in proximity to it was once part of such a pile. Hence, it is forbidden to benefit from it.¹⁴Rashi, Avodah Zarah 50a states that all stones within a cubit of the deity are forbidden. Stones which are further removed are permitted. Tosafot maintains that any stones found within a radius of four cubits are forbidden.

עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ מֶרְחָץ אוֹ גִּנָּה נֶהֱנִים בָּהֶם שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה וְאֵין נֶהֱנִים בָּהֶם בְּטוֹבָה. הָיָה לָהּ וְלַאֲחֵרִים נֶהֱנִין בָּהֶן אֲפִלּוּ בְּטוֹבַת כֹּהֲנֶיהָ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן שָׂכָר: When [the shrine of] a false deity possesses a bathhouse or a garden, benefit may be derived from it, provided one does not offer appreciation¹We have rendered טובה as "appreciation" because, as evident from the final clause of the halachah, the benefit mentioned by the Rambam is not monetary or even goods that can be exchanged for money (Kessef Mishneh).
[Thus, the Rambam's interpretation differs from that of Rashi, who, in his commentary on Avodah Zarah 51b, understands טובה as referring to monetary payment.] [in return].²Our translation follows the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah. The manuscript versions read: "provided one does not offer benefit to its priests." This version is supported by the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:3). If the benefit is offered to the idol's worshipers and not to its priests, one may make use of the bathhouse or garden even if it is necessary to pay a fee (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 143:3). [If] one must offer appreciation, it is forbidden.³The Kessef Mishneh explains that this prohibition was instituted lest a person develop close feelings towards the priests who serve a false deity.
[If the garden or bathhouse] is mutually owned by [the shrine] and another entity, one may derive benefit from it - and one is not considered to have benefited from a false deity,since the bathhouse or garden is not itself a shrine
[If the garden or bathhouse] is mutually owned by [the shrine] and another entity, one may derive benefit from it even if one provides its priests with appreciation.⁴The commentaries explain that since the prohibition is Rabbinic in nature (because it is appreciation and not a fee which is being offered), if the appreciation is not being given solely to the priests, the Rabbis did not feel it necessary to impose a prohibition. One may not, however, pay a fee.⁵because doing so provides direct benefit to the false deity.
This prohibition caused severe problems in Europe, where frequently many of the community services necessary for everyday life - e.g., flour mills, ovens, and the like - were owned by the Catholic Church. The rabbinic authorities of these areas interpreted these laws more leniently, offering different explanations of how one could benefit from church-owned property. (See Ramah and the Turei Zahav, Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) All authorities, however, agree that if a fee must be paid to the false deity itself and not to its attendants, no benefit is permitted.

מֶרְחָץ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים מֻתָּר לִרְחֹץ בָּהּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא נַעֲשֵׂית שָׁם לְנוֹי וְלֹא לְעָבְדָהּ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֱלֹהֵיהֶם. בִּזְמַן שֶׁנּוֹהֲגִים בָּהּ מִנְהַג אֱלֹהוּת וְלֹא בִּזְמַן שֶׁמְּבַזִּין אוֹתָן כְּגוֹן זוֹ שֶׁהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת עַל הַבִּיב וְהַכּל מַשְׁתִּינִין בְּפָנֶיהָ. וְאִם הָיְתָה דֶּרֶךְ עֲבוֹדָתָהּ בְּכָךְ אָסוּר לִכָּנֵס בּוֹ: It is permitted to bathe in a bathhouse even though an idol is located within,¹This halachah is based on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 3:4, which relates:
Rabban Gamliel was bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite (the Greek goddess of beauty) in Akko, and Praclus ben Paluslus asked him: "Why are you bathing in Aphrodite's bathhouse? Does your Torah not command: 'Let nothing which is condemned cling to your hand'?He responded: "One does not reply in a bathhouse." After he had departed, he told him, "I did not come into her territory, she came into mine. One does not say, 'This bathhouse is becoming to Aphrodite.' One says, 'Aphrodite is becoming to the bathhouse.' Furthermore, no matter how much money you were offered, you would not enter your idol's temple naked... and urinate before it." (The mishnah continues, mentioning the interpretation of Deuteronomy 12:2 quoted by the Rambam.)
[Significantly, Rashi (Avodah Zarah 44b) interprets the mishnah differently from the Rambam. They explain that rather than the idol being located within the bathhouse, the bathhouse was located within premises belonging to the idol.] because it is placed there for aesthetic purposes and not to be served.²This is the Rambam's interpretation of Rabban Gamliel's first point. He did not enter a place where the statue was served (Aphrodite's territory). Rather, he entered a bathhouse (his territory) where a statue had been placed as an adornment.
[The Rambam's interpretation is also found in the Tosafot Rid and the Eshkol. Rashi and others interpret Rabban Gamliel's statements differently.] [This leniency can be inferred from the use by Deuteronomy 12:2 of the term:] "their gods"³when describing the commandment to nullify idol worship - i.e., the prohibition applies when they⁴the gentiles treat them⁵their statues as gods, and not when they humiliate them, such as in an instance where [the idol] stands over the sewage pipe and they urinate before it.⁶Avodah Zarah 44b clarifies that the performance of a humiliating act before an idol does not necessarily nullify its forbidden character. (See Chapter 8, Halachah 10.) Nevertheless, since an idol placed in a bathhouse is constantly subjected to deprecating situations, we can assume that the gentiles do not regard it as a god.
Should [the idol's] worship involve such activities,⁷As explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 2, there are some idols which are worshiped in a deprecatory manner - e.g., Pe'or, whose worshipers would defecate before it. it is forbidden to enter [the bathhouse].⁸As explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 5, even when a person performs these activities with the intent of humiliating the idol, since this is its mode of worship, he is considered to have inadvertently violated the commandment against idol worship, and is obligated to bring a sin offering for atonement.

סַכִּין שֶׁל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְקַלְקֵל. וְאִם הָיְתָה בְּהֵמָה מְסֻכֶּנֶת הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְתַקֵּן וַהֲרֵי זֶה הַתִּקּוּן מֵהֲנָאַת מְשַׁמְּשֵׁי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. וְכֵן אָסוּר לַחְתֹּךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְתַקֵּן וְאִם חָתַךְ דֶּרֶךְ הֶפְסֵד וְהַשְׁחָתָה מֻתָּר: It is permitted to benefit¹The Kessef Mishneh interprets the Rambam's phraseology as implying that although, after the fact, the meat is not forbidden, at the outset (לכתחילה), it is forbidden to slaughter an animal with such a knife. Other authorities, however, do not share this opinion, and maintain that there is no prohibition against using such a knife. (See Ramah, Yoreh De'ah 142:2 and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, 10:1, which accept the latter view as halachah.) from [an animal] slaughtered using a knife [forbidden because of its connection to] idol worship,²Chulin 8b clarifies that we are speaking about an instance where the knife has already been kashered, and thus, the only question involves benefiting from an accessory of idol worship. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:7, the Rambam discusses the process of kashering the knife and what must be done if the knife was used without being kashered. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) because one is detracting from [the animal's] value.³While an animal is alive, it can be used for work and for breeding, and is therefore of greater value. If the animal is in danger [of dying], it is forbidden, because one is enhancing its value,⁴If the animal dies naturally, a Jew will not be permitted to eat its meat. Thus, the animal's slaughter enhances its value. and this improvement involves benefit from an accessory of idol worship.⁵Hence, it is forbidden, as stated in Halachah 2. The Kessef Mishneh states that, based on Halachot 12 and 13, it would appear that the Rambam maintains that all the meat from the animal is forbidden, and there is no way one may benefit from it. The Kessef Mishneh does not accept that view, and argues that it is sufficient to destroy an amount of meat equivalent to the value of the knife.
Similarly, it is forbidden to cut meat - i.e., cut large pieces of meat into smaller ones
Similarly, it is forbidden to cut meat with [such a knife], because one is enhancing its value.⁶making it fit to be sold or cooked. The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 142:6) relates that if one cut pieces of meat with such a knife, even the Rambam would not forbid use of the meat entirely. It would be necessary, however, to destroy an amount of meat equivalent to the value of the knife. Should one cut with a destructive intent, causing a loss,⁷e.g., cut pieces which are of a size fit for cooking into smaller ones, which would be less attractive. See Chulin 8b. the meat is permitted.⁸because no benefit was derived from an accessory of an idol. On the contrary, a loss was caused.

כָּל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ תְּפִיסַת יַד אָדָם וְלֹא עֲשָׂהוּ אָדָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּעֱבַד הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. לְפִיכָךְ עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים הָעוֹבְדִים אֶת הֶהָרִים וְאֶת הַגְּבָעוֹת וְאֶת הָאִילָנוֹת הַנְּטוּעִין מִתְּחִלָּתָן לְפֵרוֹת וְאֶת הַמַּעְיָנוֹת הַנּוֹבְעִין לָרַבִּים וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה וּמֻתָּר לֶאֱכל אוֹתָן הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדוּ בִּמְקוֹם גְּדִילָתָן וְאוֹתָהּ הַבְּהֵמָה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁהֻקְצַת לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת בַּאֲכִילָה בֵּין שֶׁהִקְצוּהָ לְעָבְדָהּ בֵּין שֶׁהִקְצוּהָ לְהַקְרִיבָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁאֵין הַבְּהֵמָה נֶאֱסֶרֶת בְּשֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אֲבָל עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה כָּל שֶׁהוּא אֲסָרָהּ. כֵּיצַד, כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ סִימָן לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. עֲשָׂאָהּ חֲלִיפִין לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אֲסָרָהּ. וְכֵן חֲלִיפֵי חֲלִיפִין. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנַּעֲשִׂים דְּמֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּבֶהֱמַת עַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵרוֹ לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אוֹ הֶחֱלִיפָהּ לֹא נֶאֶסְרָה שֶׁאֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְקַרְקַע עוֹלָם לֹא אֲסָרָהּ. חָפַר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אֲסָרָהּ: It is permitted to derive benefit from anything that has not been manipulated by man or that was not made by man,¹Idol worship is a human error. Hence, an object whose existence is not dependent on man cannot become forbidden because of it. even though it was worshiped [as a deity].²Although generally, it is forbidden to benefit from any entity worshiped as a false deity, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, this law does not apply in such instances. Therefore, it is permitted to benefit from mountains, hills, trees³Avodah Zarah 45a derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 12:2: "You shall surely destroy all the places where the gentiles... served their gods: on the mountains, on the hills, and under any luxuriant tree." The Sages explained that the verse indicates that shrines which are "on" the mountains and the hills and "under" the trees must be destroyed, but not the mountains, hills, and trees themselves. Our Sages exclaim: "Must God cause His world to be destroyed because of the fools?" - provided they were planted originally with the intent of harvesting their fruit⁴If, however, the trees were planted with the intent that they be worshiped, they are considered to be an asherah and forbidden, as explained in Halachah 3. - springs which provide water for many people,⁵The Rambam's phraseology leads to the conclusion that a spring which provides water for only one person is forbidden if it is worshiped. The Prisha (Yoreh De'ah 145, based on Avodah Zarah 47a), explains that were an individual to quarry out a spring to worship as a deity, it would be forbidden to benefit from it. Accordingly, when a spring that is worshiped provides water for only one person, we fear that it was quarried out for these purposes. In contrast, when many people benefit from a spring, we do not harbor such suspicions, even when the spring is worshiped.
[In their commentaries on Yoreh De'ah 145:1, the Turei Zahav and the Siftei Cohen reject this premise and maintain that as long as the water is attached to the spring, it is not forbidden, despite its being worshiped. Indeed, the Turei Zahav explains that even the Rambam would accept such a decision. See the commentary on the following halachah.] and animals,⁶Temurah 29a derives this concept as follows: Our Sages required a special verse from the T'nach to teach us that an animal that was worshiped as a deity may not be offered as a sacrifice. Were such an animal to be forbidden for use by a common person, no verse would be necessary to teach us that it is not fit for sacrificial purposes. despite their having been worshiped by pagans. It is permitted to partake of fruits that were worshiped in the place where they grow⁷Nevertheless, after the tree has been worshiped, all the fruits which grow on it during the time it is worshiped are forbidden, as explained in Halachah 3. and to partake of such an animal.⁸The Paschal sacrifice offered by our ancestors in Egypt serves as an example of this principle. Though the Egyptians worshiped the lamb, our ancestors offered it as a sacrifice to God.
Needless to say, it is permitted to partake of an animal that was set aside - but not yet used
Needless to say, it is permitted to partake of an animal that was set aside for the purpose of idol worship. It⁹such an animal is permitted regardless of whether it was set aside to be worshiped¹⁰as a deity itself. or to be sacrificed [to another deity].¹¹See Chapter 7, Halachah 15, which explains that anything set aside to be offered to an idol is not forbidden until it has actually been offered.
Temurah 28b cites a striking example of this principle. Judges (Chapter 6) relates that Gideon offered as a sacrifice to God a bull which his father had been fattening for seven years to offer as a sacrifice to Baal.
When do the above statements permitting the use of an animal - dedicated to an idol apply?
When do the above statements permitting the use of an animal apply? When a deed involving it was not committed for the sake of idol worship. If, however, any deed whatsoever was committed involving it, it is forbidden;¹²Temurah 29a gives two examples: One shears the animal for the sake of idol worship or uses it to perform work for an idol. See also Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 4:4. for example, one cut one of its signs¹³The term "signs" refers to the windpipe and esophagus, which must both be slit open for ritual slaughter to be acceptable. (See Hilchot Shechitah 1:9.) for the sake of an idol.¹⁴as are all sacrifices offered to idols (Chapter 7, Halachah 2). Should one exchange it for an idol, it is forbidden.¹⁵as explained in Chapter 7, Halachah 9. The Or Sameach explains that this prohibition applies only with regard to an idol worsiped by a Jew. We are permitted to benefit from anything which a gentile exchanged for an idol. Similarly, it is forbidden if it was exchanged for an article that was itself exchanged for an idol, since the latter article is considered to be "payment for an¹⁶The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 145:9) do not accept this prohibition and permit the use of an article exchanged for an article that was exchanged for an idol.
When does the above apply? Regarding one's own animal. If, however, one - According to the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 145), this leniency does not apply when such actions are performed by a gentile. [In this regard, an apostate Jew is considered like a gentile.]
Though the halachah follows the Beit Yosef's opinion, the Or Sameach offers a different interpretation of the Rambam's words, explaining that his statements are explicit, and neither Jew nor gentile can cause his colleague's property to become forbidden.
slaughtered a colleague's animal for the sake of a false deity, or exchanged it for an idol, it does not become forbidden, because a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to become forbidden. - According to the Or Sameach, this is a blanket statement, applying under all circumstances. The Kessef Mishneh, however, cites Hilchot Shechitah 2:21 (which is based on Chulin 41a), where the Rambam clarifies the rationale for this decision, explaining that the person presenting the offering is only performing the act to "cause his colleague discomfort."
The phrasing of the present halachah appears to indicate that a person has no potential to cause his colleague's property to become forbidden. From Hilchot Shechitah, however, it appears that were he to, in fact, desire to sacrifice an animal to an idol, he would cause it to become forbidden. Leniency is granted only because his intent is not to do so, and he appears to do so merely to cause his colleague suffering.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch 145:8 (based on the passage from Chulin) rule that if a person was warned against offering the sacrifice to an idol and acknowledged the warning, it is forbidden to benefit from the animal. See also Halachah 3 and the commentary.
When a person bows down to virgin earth, he does not cause it to become forbidden - because the earth cannot be manipulated, nor was it made by man, as above.
If he digs pits, channels, and caverns in it for the sake of a false deity, it becomes forbidden. - From the Rambam's statements, it appears that if these diggings were carried out for the sake of an idol, they are automatically forbidden. The Tur (ibid.) differs and maintains that one must worship the land after the digging is completed. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid., 145:7) quotes the Rambam's statement. idol."
When does the above apply? Regarding one's own animal. If, however, one slaughtered a colleague's animal for the sake of a false deity, or exchanged it for an idol, it does not become forbidden, because a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to become forbidden.
When a person bows down to virgin earth, he does not cause it to become forbidden. If he digs pits, channels, and caverns in it for the sake of a false deity, it becomes forbidden.

מַיִם שֶׁעֲקָרָן הַגַּל וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהֶן לֹא אֲסָרָן. נְטָלָן בְּיָדוֹ וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהֶן אֲסָרָן. אַבְנֵי הַר שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ וַעֲבָדָן בִּמְקוֹמָם מֻתָּרוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין בָּהֶן תְּפִיסַת יַד אָדָם: When a person bows down to water which was lifted up by a wave, he does not cause [the water] to become forbidden.¹Avodah Zarah 59a states that since the water was not separated by human activity, it is considered to be attached to its source. Hence, it is governed by the principles mentioned in the beginning of the previous halachah. If, however, he picked [water] up with his hands²it is "manipulated by man" and³is no longer governed by the same rules. Therefore, if a person bowed down to it, it becomes forbidden.⁴as an idol would.
The Ra'avad disputes the Rambam's decision, basing his opinion on Avodah Zarah 47a, which states: "Water that belongs to the many is never prohibited." Accordingly, he explains that the water can become prohibited only if it is the private property of a single individual. If it belongs to the public at large, it remains permitted even if it was picked up by human hands and worshiped.
The Rambam interprets the passage from Avodah Zarah differently, and maintains that once water is picked up by an individual, it is considered to be his property, and hence can become prohibited. The Shulchan Aruch does not mention this law, leading to the conclusion that it accepts the Ra'avad's view. The later authorities (e.g., Siftei Cohen 145:2), however, follow the Rambam's view.
[Note the comments of the Turei Zahav 145:3, who explains that the Rambam mentions "Springs which provide water for many people" in the previous halachah only to negate the Ra'avad's opinion. By making such a statement, the Rambam clarifies that water belonging to many people remains permitted at all times when it is a "spring." If separated from its source by human activity, it can become forbidden.]
If rocks which had slid down from a mountain - The Turei Zahav 145:2 explains that this decision applies even when they slid far from the mountain. This decision, however, is not accepted by all authorities.
If rocks which had slid down from a mountain were worshiped in the place where they [landed], they are permitted, since they were not manipulated by man.⁵Hence, the leniencies mentioned in the previous halachah apply.
The Ra'avad objects to this decision as well, noting that the matter is debated by the Sages in Avodah Zarah 46a, and no decision is reached. Since this is a question of Torah law, it would seem appropriate to follow the more stringent view.
The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 145:1) explains that the Rambam's decision is based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3:6), which rules that these rocks are permitted.

יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁזָּקַף לְבֵנָה לְהִשְׁתַּחֲווֹת לָהּ וְלֹא הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהּ וּבָא עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהּ אֲסָרָהּ בַּהֲנָאָה שֶׁזְּקִיפָתָהּ מַעֲשֶׂה. וְכֵן אִם זָקַף בֵּיצָה וּבָא עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהּ אֲסָרָהּ. חָתַךְ דְּלַעַת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהּ אֲסָרָהּ. הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לַחֲצִי דְּלַעַת וַחֲצִי הָאַחֵר מְעֹרֶה בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר מִסָּפֵק שֶׁמָּא זֶה הַחֵצִי כְּמוֹ יָד לַחֵצִי הַנֶּעֱבָד. אִילָן שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ מִתְּחִלָּה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נֶעֱבָד אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה וְזוֹ הִיא אֲשֵׁרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה. הָיָה אִילָן נָטוּעַ וּגְדָעוֹ וּפְסָלוֹ לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אֲפִלּוּ הִבְרִיךְ וְהִרְכִּיב בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁל אִילָן וְהוֹצִיא שָׂרִיגִים כּוֹרֵת אֶת הַשָּׂרִיגִים וְהֵם אֲסוּרִים בַּהֲנָאָה וּשְׁאָר הָאִילָן מֻתָּר. וְכֵן הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְאִילָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱסַר גּוּפוֹ כָּל הַשָּׂרִיגִים וְהֶעָלִים וְהַלּוּלָבִין וְהַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁיּוֹצִיא כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא נֶעֱבָד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה. אִילָן שֶׁהָיוּ הָעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים מְשַׁמְּרִין אֶת פֵּרוֹתָיו וְאוֹמְרִים שֶׁהֵם מוּכָנִים לַעֲשׂוֹת שֵׁכָר לְבֵית עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים פְּלוֹנִי וְעוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן שֵׁכָר וְשׁוֹתִים אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם חַגָּם הֲרֵי זֶה הָאִילָן אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסְּתָמוֹ שֶׁהוּא אֲשֵׁרָה וּלְפִיכָךְ עוֹשִׂין בְּפֵרוֹתָיו כָּךְ שֶׁזּוֹ הִיא חֻקָּהּ שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה: When a Jew stands a brick up with the intention of bowing down to it, but does not bow down to it,¹Were the scenario to be completed at this point, the brick would not be forbidden, because an object of worship does not become forbidden until it is actually worshiped. and then a gentile comes and bows down to it,²serving it as a false deity benefit from [the brick] becomes forbidden, because standing it up is considered to be a deed.³The explanation of this law (quoted from Avodah Zarah 46a) depends on the difference of interpretation between the Beit Yosef and the Or Sameach mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 1.
According to the Or Sameach, who maintains that a gentile cannot cause property belonging to a Jew to become forbidden, this law can be explained as follows: Although the gentile's actions would not generally cause the brick to become forbidden, since the Jew indicated his desire to worship the brick, we assume that he is pleased with the gentile's act. Therefore, it becomes forbidden.
According to the Beit Yosef's opinion (see Yoreh De'ah 145), which maintains that a gentile can cause a Jew's property to become forbidden, this passage teaches us that the Jew's act is considered sufficient to cause the brick to become forbidden. Similarly, if he⁴a Jew stands an egg up and a gentile comes and bows down to it, it becomes forbidden.⁵This situation is left as an unresolved question in Avodah Zarah (ibid.). Rashi explains that the question is whether standing up an egg is, like standing up a brick, a significant act, or whether, because an egg is much smaller than a brick, standing it up is of no significance. Because the question is left unresolved, the Rambam follows the more severe view.
This and the previous law indicate that for a Jew's acceptance of idol worship to be significant in this context, it is necessary for him to perform a deed; a verbal statement or thought is of no consequence.
If one cuts off a gourd or the like and bows down to it, it is forbidden.⁶As long as a plant is attached to its source, the fact that it is worshiped does not cause it to be forbidden, as explained in Halachah 1. When, however, it is cut off and worshiped, it becomes forbidden. Even when one bows down to only half the gourd, and the other half is still attached to it, it is forbidden because of the doubt involved: perhaps the second half is considered to be a handle for the half which was worshiped.⁷The Ra'avad objects to this decision, stating that the principle of considering one object as a "handle" of another applies only with regard to questions of ritual purity, and not regarding the prohibition of articles because of their connection with idol worship.
Though Rashi's interpretation of Chulin 128a appears to support the Ra'avad's view, the Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz explain that the passage can also be interpreted according to the Rambam's perspective.
It is forbidden to benefit from a tree which was planted for the purpose of being worshiped.⁸Although, as stated in Halachah 1, worshiping a tree does not cause it to become forbidden, since at the time the tree was planted it could be "manipulated by man," idol worship could cause it to become forbidden. This is the asherah that the Torah mentions.⁹in Exodus 34:13 and in Deuteronomy 7:5 and 12:3. There are many more references in the works of the prophets. See Chapter 6, note 28, which describes the worship of asherot. Note also the statements of the Zohar (Vol. I, 49a), which associate the rites of an asherah with the worship of the moon. When a tree which had been planted previously¹⁰not for the pupose of idol worship was pruned and carved for the sake of idol worship¹¹even if it was extended - 18הכרבה refers to a technique quite popular as a means of extending vines. A large branch of the original vine is implanted into the ground. It becomes the base from which a new vine sprouts. - even if it was extended or a growth was grafted onto the trunk of the tree¹²and branches grew, one must cut off [these] branches, and benefit from them is forbidden. - Since these branches come about as a result of a human activity carried out for the sake of idol worship, they are forbidden. - and branches grew, one must cut off [these] branches, and benefit from them is forbidden. The remainder of the tree, however, is permitted.¹³Although a deed was carried out with the tree itself, the tree - unlike the animals mentioned in Halachah 1 - does not become forbidden (Avodah Zarah 48a).
Similarly, when a person bows down to a tree, even though the tree itself is not forbidden, it is forbidden to benefit from all the branches, leaves, sprouts, and fruits which it produces during the time it is worshiped.¹⁴All the fruits and branches that are growing on the tree when it is first worshiped are permitted. The prohibition only applies to those which begin growing from the time the tree was worshiped (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 145:5).
When gentiles guard the fruits of a tree and say that they are designated to be used to make alcoholic beverages for a particular pagan temple, and [the fruits] are¹⁵known to be used for alcoholic beverages which are¹⁶customarily
drunken on their pagan holidays, it is forbidden to benefit from this tree. - Avodah Zarah (ibid.) mentions this law with regard to date palms in Babylon that were set aside for the purpose of making beer for pagan celebrations.
This is the ritual associated with an asherah. - Thus, we see that its worship also involved Bacchanalian rites.
Accordingly, we can assume that [the tree] is an asherah, and therefore its fruits will be used for such purposes. - Although we generally do not accept a gentile's word, we accept his statements in this instance, since the circumstances attest to their genuineness. drunken on their pagan holidays, it is forbidden to benefit from this tree. This is the ritual associated with an asherah. Accordingly, we can assume that [the tree] is an asherah, and therefore its fruits will be used for such purposes.

אִילָן שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין תַּחְתָּיו עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא תַּחְתָּיו אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. נְטָלָהּ מִתַּחְתָּיו הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין הָאִילָן עַצְמוֹ הוּא הַנֶּעֱבָד. בַּיִת שֶׁבְּנָאוֹ הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים מִתְּחִלָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא הַבַּיִת עַצְמוֹ נֶעֱבָד וְכֵן הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְבַיִת בָּנוּי הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. הָיָה בָּנוּי וְסִיְּדוֹ וְכִיְּרוֹ לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים עַד שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ נוֹטֵל מַה שֶּׁחִדֵּשׁ וְהַחִדּוּשׁ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהוּ לְעָבְדוֹ וּשְׁאָר הַבַּיִת מֻתָּר. הִכְנִיס עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא שָׁם הַבַּיִת אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. הוֹצִיאָהּ הֻתַּר הַבַּיִת. וְכֵן אֶבֶן שֶׁחֲצָבָהּ מִתְּחִלָּה לְעָבְדָהּ אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה. הָיְתָה חֲצוּבָה וְצִיְּרָהּ וְכִיְּרָהּ שֶׁתַּעֲבֹד אֲפִלּוּ צִיֵּר וְכִיֵּר בְּגוּף הָאֶבֶן וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם כִּיֵּר עָלֶיהָ נוֹטֵל מַה שֶּׁחִדֵּשׁ וְהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה הוֹאִיל וְנַעֲשָׂה שֶׁיֵּעָבֵד וּשְׁאָר הָאֶבֶן מֻתָּר: [The following rules apply to] a tree under which a false deity was placed:¹See also Chapter 7, Halachah 11, which explains (based on Avodah Zarah 48a) that such a tree is also considered to be an asherah. It is forbidden to benefit from it as long as the deity is located under it.²Rabbenu Nissim explains that this prohibition applies only when the tree was originally planted for this purpose. Otherwise, as in an instance when the tree itself is worshiped (see Halachah 1), it is not forbidden.
Tosafot (Avodah Zarah 47b) do not accept this view. They explain that, although according to Torah law (מדאורייתא), the tree is permitted, the Rabbis forbade deriving benefit from it as long as the false deity is located under it.
From the Rambam's inclusion of this law in this halachah, it would appear that he subscribes to the latter view. Though the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 145:6) quotes this law without specifying that the tree must be planted for this intent, the Siftei Cohen (145:19) mentions this factor. When it is removed,³The Rambam's phraseology differs slightly from his source, Avodah Zarah (ibid.), which states, "when it (the deity) is negated." we are permitted [to benefit] from it,⁴The Kessef Mishneh explains that, in contrast to the previous halachah, in this instance even the branches of the tree which grew while the deity was located under the tree are permitted since the tree itself is not the entity which was worshiped.⁵since the tree itself is not the entity which was worshiped.
When a gentile⁶The Rambam mentions a gentile in this instance because, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 4, a false deity made by a gentile is prohibited immediately. In contrast, if it was made by a Jew, it is not forbidden until it was worshiped. constructs a building with the intention that the building itself be worshiped, and, similarly, when a person bows down to a building that has already been constructed, they become forbidden.⁷Although a building that has already been constructed is connected to the earth, and thus cannot be "manipulated by man," it can still become forbidden. Avodah Zarah 47b explains that since the building materials were originally separate from the earth, the fact that they were later attached to the earth is of no significance.
The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1492) and other authorities note that in other places in the Mishneh Torah - e.g., Hilchot Me'ilah 5:5 - the Rambam considers a house, like a mountain or a tree, to be an article which is attached to the earth and beyond man's control. The Radbaz explains that the more stringent position was adopted in our particular instance because of the serious nature of the prohibition against the worship of false deities.
When a [building] which had already been constructed, was plastered and embellished⁸with artistic forms (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 3:7) for the sake of worship⁹This also refers to an instance where the building itself is worshiped, and not where it is merely serving as a shrine for the worship of other deities. to the extent that it is considered to be a new entity, one must remove all the new additions,¹⁰If the house belonged to a gentile, it is unnecessary for all the additions to be removed. After making minor changes to nullify the house's connection with worship, benefiting from it is permissible (Turei Zahav, Yoreh De'ah 145:8). and it is forbidden to benefit from them, since they were made with the intention of being worshiped.¹¹If these "improvements" were made by a Jew, his intent is not taken into consideration and the prohibition takes effect only if the building is actually worshiped. It is, however, permitted to benefit from the remainder of the building.¹²since it was not constructed with a forbidden intent.
If one placed an idol within a house, it is forbidden to benefit from the house while the idol is located within. - Although the house was not originally constructed to be a shrine, as long as it serves this purpose, it is forbidden to benefit from it.
If one placed an idol within a house, it is forbidden to benefit from the house while the idol is located within. When it is removed, the house becomes permitted.¹³The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 145:3) relates that if the house was originally constructed to be a shrine for a false deity, the removal of the idol is not sufficient to cause it to become permitted. Rather, the connection it shares with idol worship must be nullified. Furthermore, such nullification is effective only when the house is owned by a gentile. If it is owned by a Jew, the nullification is of no consequence.
Similarly, it is forbidden to benefit from a stone which was hewn from a mountain with the intention that it be worshiped.¹⁴Note the differences in the laws involving Jews and gentiles mentioned above. If it had already been hewn out, but was adorned and embellished with the intention that it be worshiped¹⁵even if the stone itself was adorned and embellished - i.e.,the substance of the stone was itself carved and - even if the stone itself was adorned and embellished and, needless to say, if the adornment was¹⁶from other substances that were
added to it - one - a Jew, see above regarding a gentile
must remove all the new additions, and it is forbidden to benefit from them, since they were made with the intention of being worshiped. It is, however, permitted to benefit from the remainder of the stone - since it was hewn from the ground without a forbidden intent. added to it - one must remove all the new additions, and it is forbidden to benefit from them, since they were made with the intention of being worshiped. It is, however, permitted to benefit from the remainder of the stone.

אֶבֶן שֶׁהֶעֱמִיד עָלֶיהָ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא עָלֶיהָ. סֻלְּקָה הָאֶבֶן מֻתֶּרֶת. מִי שֶׁהָיָה בֵּיתוֹ סָמוּךְ לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְנָפַל אָסוּר לִבְנוֹתוֹ. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. כּוֹנֵס לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וּבוֹנֶה וְאוֹתוֹ הָרֶוַח מְמַלְּאֵהוּ קוֹצִים אוֹ צוֹאָה. כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַרְחִיב לְבֵית עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. הָיָה הַכֹּתֶל שֶׁלּוֹ וְשֶׁל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים יִדּוֹן מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה, מֶחֱצָה שֶׁלּוֹ מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה וְשֶׁל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הַכּל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. אֲבָנָיו עֵצָיו וַעֲפָרוֹ הַכּל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה: A stone on which an idol is placed is forbidden as long as the idol is upon it.¹even though it was not originally hewn out for this intention. Once [the idol] is removed, it is permitted.²In this case as well, we must assume that the stone was not originally hewn out for this intention. Otherwise, the prohibition would continue even after the idol was removed.
When a person's house which is located next to [a shrine of] - Rashi, Avodah Zarah 47a, states that this refers to a house which is itself worshiped.
When a person's house which is located next to [a shrine of] an idol³The commentaries explain that the person's house and the shrine share a single wall. The wall is located, however, on property belonging to the shrine. falls, it is forbidden for him to rebuild it.⁴to its former boundaries. By rebuilding the wall, the person completes the construction of the idol's shrine. What must he do? He must move [the wall] within his own four cubits,⁵The Rambam's text of the source of this halachah, the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 3:6, does not mention "four cubits," nor is this phrase included in many manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The intent appears to be that he should move the wall entirely onto his own property. Other authorities, however, include this phrase in the Mishnah. According to their view (which is accepted by the Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 143:2), one must leave open a space of four cubits. and then rebuild it. The empty space must not be left free for the sake of the shrine of the idol.⁶lest the shrine be expanded. Rather, he should fill it with thorns or feces.⁷Avodah Zarah 47b states that the space should be used "as an outhouse for children."
If the wall belonged jointly to both a private individual and an idol,⁸i.e., the space upon which the wall originally stood belonged to both. Therefore, when the property lines are drawn again, it should be considered to belong to them equally.⁹This is the common practice when a wall falls. (See Bava Batra 1:1.) It is permitted to benefit from his half;¹⁰Though he must leave an open space between the wall he builds and the wall of the shrine, he may include his portion of the area from the fallen wall as part of this space (Beit Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 143). the [half] belonging to the idol, however, is forbidden.¹¹and cannot be included in the open space. [Similarly,] it is forbidden to benefit from all [the wall's] stones, beams, and earth.¹²Our translation follows Rashi's commentary. Rabbenu Nissim maintains that if the wall was built jointly by the two parties, the Jew is entitled to half of the building materials. Nevertheless, even though he follows this view in principle, in practice, he forbids the Jew from using any of the building materials which he does not recognize as his own. The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) quotes Rabbenu Nissim's view.

כֵּיצַד מְאַבֵּד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וּשְׁאָר דְּבָרִים הָאֲסוּרִים בִּגְלָלָהּ כְּגוֹן מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ וְתִקְרֹבֶת שֶׁלָּהּ. שׁוֹחֵק וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ אוֹ שׂוֹרֵף וּמֵטִיל לְיָם הַמֶּלַח: How must one destroy a false deity¹The placement of this halachah appears problematic. On the surface, it would have been more appropriate to relate it after Chapter 7, Halachah 1, which mentions the commandment to destroy idol worship, or after the following halachah, which completes the description of the types of articles that are forbidden because of their association with idol worship.
Perhaps, since the prohibition against benefiting from the coating of an idol is considered to be a mitzvah in its own right, the Rambam concludes his discussion of the mitzvah to destroy prohibited articles before entering that subject (Kinat Eliyahu). and the other entities which are forbidden on its account²e.g., its accessories and offerings? - See Chapter 7, Halachot 2 and 9. - e.g., its accessories and offerings? One must grind them and scatter [the dust] in the wind,³The Sages objected to this opinion, maintaining that the dust will serve as fertilizer, and thus benefit man. This objection is not accepted, since the fertilizer is not the only factor causing the crops to grow (see the commentary on Chapter 7, Halachah 14, which describes the concept of 18הז םרוגáהזו), and it was not intentionally used for this purpose (Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 43a). or burn them and deposit the ashes in the Dead Sea.⁴See the commentary on Chapter 7, Halachah 5, which explains why the Dead Sea is mentioned.
The Merchevat HaMishneh cites Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 11:3, which states:
How must chametz be destroyed? It may be burned, crumbled and tossed to the wind, or thrown to the sea.
On this basis, he explains that there are three options to destroy a false deity: grinding and tossing it to the wind, burning (where the article must be destroyed), and throwing it into the Dead Sea. Since the Dead Sea is a barren place, which is not frequented by ships, the article need not be destroyed. Even if it is left whole, we assume that no benefit will come from it to man.
This interpretation is not accepted by all authorities. Tosafot (ibid.) maintains that even an idol tossed into the Dead Sea must be destroyed first.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:15) mentions letting an idol sink "in the sea" (not "the Dead Sea"), without requiring that it be destroyed first. The Siftei Cohen (145:13) and the Turei Zahav (145:11), however, require an idol to be destroyed before it is deposited in any sea other than the Dead Sea.

דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ תְּפִיסַת יַד אָדָם שֶׁנֶּעֱבַד כְּגוֹן הָרִים וּבְהֵמָה וְאִילָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַנֶּעֱבָד עַצְמוֹ מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה צִפּוּיוֹ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה וְהַנֶּהֱנֶה בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא מֵהֶן לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז כה) "לֹא תַחְמֹד כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב עֲלֵיהֶם". וְכָל צִפּוּיֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הֲרֵי הֵן בִּכְלַל מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ: Although [as mentioned above,] an entity which cannot be manipulated by man¹e.g., a mountain, animal, or tree - even when worshiped remains permitted - Though, as mentioned in Halachah 1, benefit from these entities is not forbidden, their worship is still considered to be idol worship. Therefore, - e.g., a mountain, animal, or tree - even when worshiped remains permitted, it is forbidden to benefit from its coatings.²since they are considered to be an accessory of idol worship. Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 22) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 428) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. A person who derives any benefit from them whatsoever is [liable for] lashes,³The commentaries note that in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, the Rambam states that a person who benefits from an idol or its accessories receives two measures of lashes. Thus, one might assume that for this transgression, one should receive two or three measures of lashes. (See the Ramban, Hasagot l'Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 194.)
Avodat HaMelech explains that since the deity itself is not forbidden, this prohibition is considered to be a separate commandment.Accordingly, its transgression is not related to any other prohibitions. as [Deuteronomy 7:25] states: "Do not desire the silver and gold which are upon them."
Any⁴Although, literally, the subject of the Biblical proof-text is "the statues of their gods," the interpretation quoted by the Rambam has its source in Avodah Zarah 45a. coating of⁵Though the verse mentions only silver and gold, any substance which was intended to adorn an entity worshiped as a false deity is considered to be one of its accessories.⁶and forbidden.

עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁל עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁבִּטְּלוּהָ קֹדֶם שֶׁתָּבוֹא לִידֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת בַּהֲנָאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז כה) "פְּסִילֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ", כְּשֶׁבָּאוּ לְיָדֵינוּ וְהֵן נוֹהֲגִין בָּהֶם אֱלֹהוּת, אֲבָל אִם בִּטְּלוּם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין: It is permitted to benefit from a false deity belonging to a gentile whose deification was nullified¹by performing one of the deeds mentioned in Halachah 10 [by gentiles]²but not by Jews (see the following halachah) before³but not after, (see the following halachah.) it entered the possession of a Jew, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states, "You must burn the statues of their gods with fire."⁴Avodah Zarah 52a notes that the root פסל can mean both "statue" and "nullify." Thus, it comments, "Which is the source from where we learn that a gentile can nullify his deity? 'You must burn the statues of their gods.'"
K'nesset HaGedolah notes a difficulty in this halachah, based on the principle that two new concepts cannot be derived from the same verse. Avodah Zarah, ibid., mentions that the same phrase is quoted as the source for both this concept and the law stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 4. It therefore seeks to derive one of these laws from a different source. The Rambam, however, quotes the same phrase as the proof-text for both laws.
K'nesset HaGedolah and the Lechem Mishneh explain - using this as an example for a principle that applies throughout the Mishneh Torah - that the Rambam's goal was to present the laws in the manner which it could be most easily appreciated by a reader, even if in doing so he did not follow all the principles of Biblical exegesis accepted by the Talmud. [This command applies] only if they are treated as gods when they enter our possession. If, however, their deification was nullified, they are permitted.⁵and may be used for whatever purposes a Jew desires. It appears, however, that they are forbidden to be used for the Temple's purposes, even after they were nullified.

עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה לְעוֹלָם אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה לְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים בָּהּ שֻׁתָּפוּת אֵין בִּטּוּלוֹ מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם אֶלָּא אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה לְעוֹלָם וּטְעוּנָה גְּנִיזָה. וְכֵן עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁל עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁבָּאת לְיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאַחַר כָּךְ בִּטְּלָהּ הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים אֵין בִּטּוּלוֹ מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם אֶלָּא אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה לְעוֹלָם. וְאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּרְשׁוּת עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים. עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים קָטָן אוֹ שׁוֹטֶה אֵינוֹ מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. וְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁבִּטֵּל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים בֵּין שֶׁלּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁל עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים אֲחֵרִים בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲנָסוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל כָּךְ הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּטֵלָה. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים הַמְבַטֵּל עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אֵין בִּטּוּלוֹ בִּטּוּל. הַמְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים בִּטֵּל מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ. בִּטֵּל מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ מֻתָּרִים וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה עַד שֶׁיְּבַטְּלֶנָּה. וְתִקְרֹבֶת עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה לְעוֹלָם: A false deity belonging to a Jew can never be nullified.¹Since a Jew's sin of idol worship is more severe than a gentile's, it is forbidden to derive benefit from the object of that worship forever. Even if he owns it in partnership with a gentile, its nullification is of no consequence.²Avodah Zarah 53a explains that we consider the Jew to have worshiped the idol through his own process of choice, and not merely as a result of the gentile's influence. Therefore, even though the gentile nullifies his portion, the idol is still forbidden because of the Jew. Rather, it is forbidden to benefit from it forever, and it must be entombed.³Avodah Zarah 52a derives this from Deuteronomy 27:15: "Cursed be the man who makes an idol... and places it in a secret place." We can infer: What must be done with an idol made by a Jew? It must be placed in a "secret place" - i.e., entombed.
The Kessef Mishneh and others question why a Jew's idol should be entombed instead of destroyed, as required in Halachah 6. [Note that Tosafot, Avodah Zarah, ibid., interpret the Hebrew genizah to mean "destruction," rather than entombment, in this instance.]
Avodat HaMelech explains that since the concept is derived from a Biblical proof-text, there is no difficulty. It is all a matter of Divine decree. In one instance, God desires that the false deities be destroyed, while in another instance He desires that they be entombed.
Similarly, when a false deity⁴Note that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:2) distinguishes between a false deity itself and its accessories and adornments, stating that the latter may be nullified by a gentile even after they have been acquired by a Jew. belonging to a gentile enters the possession of a Jew, and then is nullified by a gentile, the nullification is of no consequence,⁵The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 146) explains that this is a Rabbinic decree. and it is forbidden to benefit from it forever.⁶Therefore, whenever a Jew wants to take possession of a false deity, he must have it nullified by a gentile before he assumes ownership of it.
A Jew cannot nullify a false deity - An idol can be nullified as a divinity only by a person who once attached importance to it. Since a Jew is, in essence, a believer in the true God, his attachment to idols is merely superficial. Hence, his acts can have no effect upon them.
A Jew cannot nullify a false deity even when it is in the possession of a gentile.⁷The Kessef Mishneh explains that this decision applies even when the gentile gives the Jew permission to nullify it. A gentile who is a minor or a fool cannot nullify a false deity.⁸Avodah Zarah 43a relates the following narrative:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi related: Once I was following Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Great on a road. He found a ring with the imprint of a d'rakon (see Chapter 7, Halachah 8) on it. He passed a gentile child without saying anything to him. Afterwards, he met a gentile adult and asked him to nullify it. He refused. Rabbi Elazar struck him and he nullified it.We learn from this three things: a) a gentile can nullify an idol whether it belongs to him or to his colleague; b) a gentile who is knowledgeable about idol worship can nullify it, while one who is not knowledgeable cannot nullify it; c) a gentile's nullification of idol worship is effective even if he is compelled to do so.
Neither a minor nor a fool is considered "knowledgeable about idol worship." hence, their nullification is not acceptable.
When a gentile is forced to nullify a false deity - whether it belongs to him or to other gentiles - even when he is forced to do so by Jews, the nullification is of consequence.
The gentile who nullifies idol worship must himself be an idolater. - It does not, however, matter whether the idolater worships the particular idol he nullifies or not. For example, a worshiper of Pe'or can nullify a shrine of Marculis (Avodah Zarah 64b). When a gentile is forced to nullify a false deity - whether it belongs to him or to other gentiles, even when he is forced to do so by Jews - the nullification is of consequence.
The gentile who nullifies idol worship must himself be an idolater. If he is not an idolater, his nullification is of no consequence.⁹Avodah Zarah (ibid.) states that a ger toshav - a gentile who accepts the observance of the seven universal laws given to Noach and his descendants - cannot nullify an idol.
As stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 6, a ger toshav must formalize his acceptance of these laws before a Rabbinic court. Also, the laws of a ger toshav apply only during the era when the Jubilee year is observed. Nevertheless, from Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 11:7 and 13:11, it appears that even a gentile who observes the seven Noachide laws cannot nullify an idol in the present era. There, the Rambam explains that the Moslems are not considered to be idolaters regarding the laws of yayin nesech. Thus, it can be assumed that their nullification of idol worship would not be of consequence.
See also the statements of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:2) and the Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 124:5), which appear to accept this decision.
When [a gentile] nullifies a false deity, he also nullifies [the connection to idol worship of] its accessories.¹⁰and it becomes permitted to benefit from them. The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 146:13) states that this law applies even if a Jew had already taken possession of the accessories, so long as the false deity remained in the possession of the gentile. When he nullifies [the connection to idol worship of] its accessories, it is permitted to benefit from the accessories. [The deity] itself, however, remains forbidden until it is nullified.¹¹On the contrary, the fact that the gentile did not nullify the false deity itself indicates that he still has some reverence for it. [The connection to idol worship of] an object that was brought to an idol as an offering¹²whether it was brought by a Jew or gentile can never be nullified.¹³From Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 6:7, it appears that this decision applies only to foods which were offered to a false deity. If other articles were brought as offerings, different laws apply.

כֵּיצַד מְבַטְּלָהּ. קָטַע רֹאשׁ חָטְמָהּ רֹאשׁ אָזְנָהּ רֹאשׁ אֶצְבָּעָהּ פָּחֲסָה בְּפָנֶיהָ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חִסְּרָהּ אוֹ שֶׁמְּכָרָהּ לְצוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּטֵלָה. אֲבָל אִם מִשְׁכְּנָהּ אוֹ מְכָרָהּ לְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים אוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ צוֹרֵף אוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלָה עָלֶיהָ מַפּלֶת וְלֹא פִּנָּה. גְּנָבוּהָ לִסְטִים וְלֹא תְּבָעוּהָ. רָקַק בְּפָנֶיהָ. הִשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ. גְּרָרָהּ. זָרַק בָּהּ אֶת הַצּוֹאָה הֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה: How is [an idol] nullified?¹by a gentile, as mentioned in Halachah 8? When one cuts off the tip of its nose, the tip of its ear, or the tip of its finger,²By doing so, one mars its appearance and thus reveals that one no longer regards it with reverence. smoothes out its face³Our translation follows the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:4). Others (see Rashi, Avodah Zarah 53a) render it as "smashes its face." - even though none of its substance was destroyed⁴Once the face of an idol is no longer recognizable, the idol is obviously not considered to be a deity. The Rambam emphasizes that it is only when the face of the idol is smoothed out that it is nullified. Smoothing out any other portion of the idol is not effective. - or sells it to a Jewish jeweler,⁵By doing so, the gentile implies his willingness to have the Jew smelt down the idol to its precious metal value. Thus, he obviously no longer considers it to be a god.
This point is debated in Avodah Zarah 53a, and no explicit conclusion is reached. Most other authorities (and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 146:8) maintain that selling it to a Jewish jeweler is insufficient to nullify it. it is nullified.⁶Note the Ramah's decision (Yoreh De'ah 146:7) that making a verbal statement is sufficient to nullify it as an idol in most cases. A deed such as those mentioned above is necessary only when a gentile is compelled to nullify it.
If, however, one gave it as security for a loan, sold it to a gentile,⁷even a jeweler [sold it] to a Jew who is not a jeweler,⁸In these instances, although the gentile used the idol for business purposes, it is still possible that he sold it with the intent that the purchaser use the idol as a god. Hence, we cannot be certain that it was nullified by the seller. [left it] after it was covered by fallen articles without removing them, did not demand its return after it was stolen by thieves,⁹Such acts appear to indicate that the gentile has little reverence for his idol. (Why should he? Once he sees that the idol cannot save itself, why should he think that it will benefit him?) Nevertheless, as long as he does not do anything that explicitly clarifies that he no longer reveres it, it is not nullified. spat in its face, urinated upon it, dragged it [in mud],¹⁰The bracketed additions are based on Rashi's commentary (Avodah Zarah, ibid.). or threw feces upon it,¹¹Although these acts are irreverent in nature, they could be interpreted as temporary expressions of anger rather than a sincere nullification of the idol's divinity. it is not nullified.¹²Avodah Zarah 53a derives this from the exegesis of Isaiah 8:21-22, which implies that though temporarily the people may "curse their king and god (idol) and look upward (to the true God)," shortly afterwards they will return and "look to the earth" (worship their idol again).

עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהֱנִיחוּהָ עוֹבְדֶיהָ בִּשְׁעַת שָׁלוֹם מֻתֶּרֶת בַּהֲנָאָה שֶׁהֲרֵי בִּטְּלוּהָ. בִּשְׁעַת מִלְחָמָה אֲסוּרָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הֱנִיחוּהָ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה. עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ שְׁבָרֶיהָ אֲסוּרִים בַּהֲנָאָה עַד שֶׁיְּבַטְּלוּהָ. לְפִיכָךְ הַמּוֹצֵא שִׁבְרֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה שֶׁמָּא לֹא בִּטְּלוּהָ הָעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים. וְאִם הָיְתָה שֶׁל פְּרָקִים וְהֶדְיוֹט יָכוֹל לְהַחֲזִירָם צָרִיךְ לְבַטֵּל כָּל פֶּרֶק וּפֶרֶק מִפְּרָקֶיהָ וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַחֲזִיר כֵּיוָן שֶׁבִּטֵּל אֵיבָר אֶחָד מִמֶּנָּה בָּטְלוּ כָּל הַשְּׁבָרִים: When a false deity was abandoned by its worshipers in a time of peace, it is apparent that they nullified it. Hence, benefit may be derived from it. [If it was abandoned] in a time of war, it is forbidden. The only reason they abandoned it was the war.¹Note the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:10) which states that if the gentiles could return to the idol but do not, it is considered to have been nullified.
When a false deity becomes broken in the course of nature, it is forbidden to benefit from its broken pieces until they have been nullified. - Avodah Zarah 41b quotes a difference of opinion on this matter between Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan. Resh Lakish maintains that we can assume that the gentiles nullified their worship of the idol. If it could not save itself, surely it cannot save them.
Rabbi Yochanan does not accept this opinion and maintains that even when an idol is broken it is revered. Avodah Zarah 49b states that the gentiles would even worship the broken pieces of an idol. (See also the Jerusalem Talmud, Avodah Zarah 3:3.)
When a false deity becomes broken in the course of nature, it is forbidden to benefit from its broken pieces until they have been nullified. Accordingly, when a person finds broken pieces of an idol, [he must regard them] as forbidden, lest the gentiles have not nullified them.²Avodah Zarah 41b explains that although the possibility exists that the idol was nullified, we must still regard it as forbidden. Since it is recognized as an idol, the prohibition against using it becomes an established fact, which cannot be changed until we are certain that it has been nullified as an object of worship. (Note also our commentary on Chapter 7, Halachah 7.)
[The following principles apply to an idol] which comes in pieces: If it could be reassembled by an ordinary person,³the fact that it is broken is not of consequence. Indeed, the laws which govern it are more stringent than if it remained whole. each piece must be nullified individually.⁴for each is considered to be a separate entity. If [an ordinary person] could not reassemble it, once one has nullified one of its limbs, all of them are nullified.⁵Since the idol is broken and cannot be reassembled by an ordinary person, it is treated more leniently, and if one part of it is nullified, the entire idol becomes permitted. In contrast to the Ra'avad and some other authorities, the Rambam does require that at least this minimal nullification be carried out. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:11) follows the Rambam's view.

מִזְבַּח עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁנִּפְגַּם עֲדַיִן הוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה עַד שֶׁיִּנָּתֵץ רֻבּוֹ בְּיַד עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים. וּבִימוֹס שֶׁנִּפְגַּם מֻתָּר. אֵי זֶהוּ בִּימוֹס וְאֵי זֶהוּ מִזְבֵּחַ. בִּימוֹס אֶבֶן אַחַת. מִזְבֵּחַ אֲבָנִים הַרְבֵּה. וְכֵיצַד מְבַטְּלִין אַבְנֵי מַרְקוּלִיס. כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּנָה מֵהֶם בִּנְיָן אוֹ חִפָּה בָּהֶן אֶת הַדְּרָכִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ הֲרֵי הֵן מֻתָּרִים בַּהֲנָאָה. כֵּיצַד מְבַטְּלִים אֶת הָאֲשֵׁרָה. קִרְסֵם מִמֶּנָּה עָלֶה אוֹ זָרַק מִמֶּנָּה יוֹנֵק נָטַל מִמֶּנָּה מַקֵּל אוֹ שַׁרְבִיט אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁפָאָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לְצָרְכָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּטֵלָה. שְׁפָאָהּ לְצָרְכָּהּ הִיא אֲסוּרָה וּשְׁפָאֶיהָ מֻתָּרִים. וְאִם הָיְתָה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין לְצָרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לְצָרְכָּהּ בֵּין הִיא וּבֵין שְׁפָאֶיהָ אֲסוּרָה לְעוֹלָם שֶׁעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין לָהּ בִּטּוּל לְעוֹלָם: Though an altar for idol worship has been damaged, it is still forbidden to benefit from it until the majority of it has been destroyed by gentiles.¹As stated in Halachah 9, the nullification of false deities must be performed by gentiles. A platform which has been damaged is permitted.²Avodah Zarah 53b relates that since a platform consists of only a single stone, if it is damaged another one will be brought to replace it.
Halachah 5 states that once an idol is removed from a stone, one is permitted to benefit from it. Thus, we are forced to say that this law is speaking about an instance where the stone is presently being used as a platform. It can be interpreted as applying when the damage happens as a matter of course. The Rambam is teaching us that even though the stone is being used as a platform at present, since it will soon be replaced, it is permitted. Alternatively, it is speaking about a stone which was originally hewn out to be used as a platform. In such an instance, the damage must be purposely caused by a gentile with the intention of nullifying the platform.
What is considered a platform, and what, an altar? A platform consists of a single stone; an altar, of many stones.³Rather than differentiate between them because of the functions they serve, explaining that a platform is used to place idols upon, and an altar, to bring sacrifices, the Rambam (based on Avodah Zarah, ibid.,) considers size the determinant.
How are the stones of Marculis nullified?⁴As mentioned, a shrine to Marculis consists of three stones placed one on top of the other. When one constructs a building from them or uses them to pave the roads or the like, it is permitted to benefit from them.⁵Avodah Zarah 50a relates that even Rabbi Menachem b'Rabbi Simai, who was called the son of the holy because he would not look at the image of a coin, lest it carry the form of an idol, would walk on such roads.
How is an asherah⁶A tree which is worshiped or one which offers shade for an idol nullified? When one pulls off a leaf, cuts off a branch,⁷Our translation is based on the text of the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:10) and the Rambam's commentary. A printing error appears has crept into the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah, which read זרק rather than זרד. takes a staff or scepter from it, or planes off its sides in a manner which does not benefit it, it is nullified.⁸These actions indicate a lack of reverence for the tree. Hence, they are sufficient to nullify it. When one planes its sides in a manner which benefits it,⁹to improve its appearance or to prune it so that it will grow better it is forbidden,¹⁰Since these actions are no indication of a lack of reverence, but its shavings are permitted.¹¹since they are not worshiped.
If [the sides of] an asherah which belongs to a Jew¹²or if a Jew does this to an asherah of a gentile [are planed off],¹³even by a gentile both it and its shavings¹⁴Even though the shavings will not be worshiped, since they come from a false deity which was not nullified, they also are forbidden forever, regardless of whether [it was planed] for its benefit or not, because a false deity belonging to a Jew can never be nullified.¹⁵as stated in Halachah 10.

שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים לִפְנֵי חַגָּם שֶׁל עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים אָסוּר לִקַּח מֵהֶם וְלִמְכֹּר לָהֶם דָּבָר הַמִּתְקַיֵּם, לִלְווֹת מֵהֶן וּלְהַלְווֹתָם, לִפָּרַע מֵהֶן וְלִפְרֹעַ לָהֶם מִלְוֶּה בִּשְׁטָר אוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אֲבָל מִלְוֶּה עַל פֶּה נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמַצִּיל מִיָּדָם. וּמֻתָּר לִמְכֹּר לָהֶן דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְקַיֵּם כְּגוֹן יְרָקוֹת וְתַבְשִׁיל עַד יוֹם חַגָּם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר אֲרָצוֹת אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא יוֹם חַגָּם בִּלְבַד. עָבַר וְנָשָׂא וְנָתַן עִמָּהֶן בְּאוֹתָן הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בְּיוֹם חַגָּם עִמָּהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה: It is forbidden to purchase or sell any durable entity to an idolater within three days of one of their holidays. [Similarly, within this period, it is forbidden] to borrow from them, to lend to them, to accept payment from them or to repay them for a loan that is supported by a promissory note or collateral. It is, however, permitted to collect a loan which is supported by a verbal commitment alone, because one is saving one's property from being lost to them.
It is permitted to sell them an entity which will not endure - e.g., vegetables, or a cooked dish - until the day of their festival.
When does the above apply? In Eretz Yisrael. In other lands, however, it is forbidden [to engage in such activities] only on the day of their festival itself.
If one transgressed and did business with them during these three days, one may derive benefit from the results of these transactions. When, however, one does business with them on the day of their festival itself, it is forbidden to benefit from the results of these transactions.

וְאָסוּר לִשְׁלֹחַ דּוֹרוֹן לְכוּתִי בְּיוֹם אֵידוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בַּעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבְדָהּ. וְכֵן כּוּתִי שֶׁשָּׁלַח דּוֹרוֹן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּיוֹם חַגּוֹ לֹא יְקַבְּלֶנּוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. וְאִם חָשַׁשׁ לְאֵיבָה נוֹטְלוֹ בְּפָנָיו וְאֵינוֹ נֶהֱנֶה בּוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לוֹ שֶׁזֶּה הַכּוּתִי אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וְאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּהּ: It is forbidden to send a present to a gentile on one of his holidays, unless one knows that he does not acknowledge or worship idols. Similarly, if a gentile sends a present to a Jew on one of [the gentile's] holidays, the Jew should not accept it. If, however, there is the possibility of ill-feeling arising, he should take it from him. Nevertheless, he should not derive any benefit from it until he finds out that the gentile does not acknowledge or worship idols.

הָיָה אֵידָן שֶׁל אוֹתָן עַכּוּ"ם יָמִים הַרְבֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ אַרְבָּעָה אוֹ עֲשָׂרָה כָּל אוֹתָן הַיָּמִים כְּיוֹם אֶחָד הֵן וְכֻלָּן אֲסוּרִין עִם ג' יָמִים לִפְנֵיהֶן: If the idolaters' festival lasts several days - whether three, four, or ten - all the days [of the festival] are considered as a single day. [Carrying out transactions] on any of these days, or on the three days preceding them, is forbidden.

כְּנַעֲנִים עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים וּמַזָּלוֹת הֵם וְיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן הוּא יוֹם אֵידָם. לְפִיכָךְ אָסוּר לָתֵת וְלָשֵׂאת עִמָּהֶם בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹם חֲמִישִׁי וְיוֹם שִׁשִּׁי שֶׁבְּכָל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְכֵן נוֹהֲגִין עִמָּהֶם בְּכָל אֵידֵיהֶם: The Canaanites are idol worshipers, and Sunday is their festival. Accordingly, in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden to conduct transactions with them on Thursday and Friday each and every week, and, needless to say, on Sunday itself, when transactions with them are forbidden everywhere.

יוֹם שֶׁמִּתְכַּנְּסִין בּוֹ עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים לְהַעֲמִיד לָהֶן מֶלֶךְ וּמַקְרִיבִין וּמְקַלְּסִים לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם יוֹם חַגָּם הוּא וַהֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר חַגֵּיהֶם אֲבָל עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה הוּא חַג לְעַצְמוֹ וּמוֹדֶה לְכוֹכָב שֶׁלּוֹ וּמְקַלְּסוֹ בְּיוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ וְיוֹם תִּגְלַחַת זְקָנוֹ אוֹ בְּלוֹרִיתוֹ וְיוֹם שֶׁעָלָה בּוֹ מִן הַיָּם וְשֶׁיָּצָא מִבֵּית הָאֲסוּרִים וְיוֹם שֶׁעָשָׂה בּוֹ מִשְׁתֶּה לִבְנוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּאֵלּוּ אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם וְאוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ בִּלְבַד. וְכֵן יוֹם שֶׁיָּמוּת לָהֶן בּוֹ מֵת וְיַעֲשׂוּהוּ חַג אוֹתָם הָעוֹשִׂים אֲסוּרִין אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. וְכָל מִיתָה שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין בָּהּ כֵּלִים וּמְקַטְּרִים קְטֹרֶת בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. אֵין יוֹם הֶחָג אָסוּר אֶלָּא לְעוֹבְדֶיהָ בִּלְבַד. אֲבָל אוֹתָם שֶׁשְּׂמֵחִים בּוֹ וְאוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין וּמְשַׁמְּרִין אוֹתוֹ מִפְּנֵי מִנְהָג אוֹ מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲבָל הֵם אֵין מוֹדִין בּוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין לָשֵׂאת וְלָתֵת עִמָּהֶן: The day on which the idolaters gather together to crown a king and offer sacrifice and praise to their false deities is considered to be one of their holidays, since it is comparable to their other holidays. In contrast, on a day which is celebrated by an individual idolater as a festival on which he gives thanks and praise to the star he [worships] - for example, his birthday, the day on which he shaves his beard or hair, the day on which he returns from a sea-voyage, the day on which he leaves prison, the day on which he makes a [wedding] feast for his son, and the like - it is forbidden [to do business] on that particular day only with that individual man.
Similarly, when [it is customary] that the day on which one of them dies is marked with festivities, it is forbidden [to do business] with those individuals on that day. Whenever [a person's] death is marked by the burning of his utensils and the offering of incense, we can assume that idol worship is [involved in the ritual].
The [above] prohibition applies only to those who worship [the false deity]. In contrast, it is permitted to do business with those who join in the celebrations by eating, drinking, and observing it as a matter of custom or in deference to the king.

דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן מְיֻחָדִין לְמִין מִמִּינֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם אָסוּר לִמְכֹּר לְעוֹבְדֵי אוֹתָהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ הַמָּקוֹם לְעוֹלָם. וּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן מְיֻחָדִין לָהּ מוֹכְרִין אוֹתָם סְתָם. וְאִם פֵּרֵשׁ הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהוּא קוֹנֶה אוֹתָם לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אָסוּר לִמְכֹּר לוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן פְּסָלוֹ מִלְּהַקְרִיבוֹ לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין חָסֵר לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים: Articles which are distinguished by their use [in the worship] of one of the false deities in a particular locale may never be sold to the worshipers of that deity in that locale. Articles which are not characterized by such uniqueness may be sold to them without enquiring [about the purpose for which they will be used].
If, however, an idolater specifically states that he is purchasing the article for the sake of idol worship, it is forbidden to sell it to him unless one blemishes it in a manner which disqualifies it for use as an offering to the idol. An animal lacking a limb is not offered as a sacrifice to an idol.

הָיוּ מְעֹרָבִין דְּבָרִים הַמְיֻחָדִין עִם דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין מְיֻחָדִין כְּגוֹן לְבוֹנָה זַכָּה בִּכְלַל לְבוֹנָה שְׁחוֹרָה מוֹכֵר הַכּל סְתָם וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יְלַקֵּט הַזַּכָּה לְבַדָּהּ לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: It is permitted to sell articles which are distinguished [by their use in the worship of a false deity] that are mixed together with articles that are not used for such purposes - e.g., pure frankincense with black frankincense - without enquiring [about the purpose for which they will be used]. We do not suspect that [the purchaser] will separate the pure frankincense to use for idol worship. The same applies in other similar situations.

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מוֹכְרִין לְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים דְּבָרִים שֶׁמַּחֲזִיקִין בָּהֶן יְדֵיהֶן לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים כָּךְ אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ נֵזֶק לָרַבִּים כְּגוֹן דֻּבִּים וַאֲרָיוֹת וּכְלֵי זַיִן וּכְבָלִים וְשַׁלְשְׁלָאוֹת. וְאֵין מַשְׁחִיזִין לָהֶם אֶת הַזַּיִן. וְכָל שֶׁאָסוּר לְמָכְרוֹ לְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים אָסוּר לְמָכְרוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הֶחָשׁוּד לִמְכֹּר לְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים. וְכֵן אָסוּר לִמְכֹּר כְּלֵי נֵזֶק לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לִסְטִים: Just as it is forbidden to sell idolaters articles that assist them in idol worship, it is forbidden to sell them articles that can cause harm to many people - for example, bears, lions, weapons, fetters, and chains. [Similarly,] it is forbidden to sharpen their weapons.
Everything that is forbidden to be sold to idolaters is also forbidden to be sold to a Jew who is suspect that he will sell to idolaters. Similarly, it is forbidden to sell dangerous objects to a Jewish thief.

הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל שׁוֹכְנִים בֵּין הָעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים וְכָרְתוּ לָהֶם בְּרִית מֻתָּר לִמְכֹּר כְּלֵי זַיִן לְעַבְדֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְגֵיסוֹתָיו מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעוֹשִׂים בָּהֶם מִלְחָמָה עִם צָרֵי הַמְּדִינָה לְהַצִּילָהּ וְנִמְצְאוּ מְגִנִּים עָלֵינוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי אָנוּ שְׁרוּיִין בְּתוֹכָם. עִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים מֻתָּר לְהַלֵּךְ חוּצָה לָהּ וְאָסוּר לְהִכָּנֵס בְּתוֹכָהּ. הָיָה חוּצָה לָהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים מֻתָּר לְהַלֵּךְ בְּתוֹכָהּ: When the Jews dwell among the idolaters and have established a covenant with them, it is permissible to sell weapons to the servants of the king and his to his soldiers, because they use them to wage war against the enemies of the country and to protect it. Thus, they also protect us, for we dwell among them.
It is permitted to walk around a city in which an idol is located. It is, however, forbidden to enter [the city]. If the idol is located outside the city, it is permitted to walk within it.

הַהוֹלֵךְ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם אָסוּר לוֹ לַעֲבֹר בְּעִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַדֶּרֶךְ מְיֻחֶדֶת לְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם דֶּרֶךְ אַחֶרֶת וְנִקְרָה וְהָלַךְ בְּזוֹ מֻתָּר: A person who is journeying from one place to another may not pass through a city in which a false deity is located.
When does this apply? When this is the only way to his destination. If, however, there is an alternate route to his destination and, by chance, he took [the route which passed through this city], it is permissible.

אָסוּר לִבְנוֹת עִם הָעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים כִּפָּה שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִים בָּהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. וְאִם עָבַר וּבָנָה שְׂכָרוֹ מֻתָּר. אֲבָל בּוֹנֶה הוּא לְכַתְּחִלָּה הַטְּרַקְלִין אוֹ הֶחָצֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ אוֹתָהּ הַכִּפָּה: It is forbidden to build - [even] together with an idolater - a dome under which an idol is placed. If one transgressed and built such a structure, however, one's wage is permitted. A priori, one may construct the palace or the courtyard where that dome is located.

עִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְהָיוּ בָּהּ חֲנֻיּוֹת מְעֻטָּרוֹת וְשֶׁאֵינָן מְעֻטָּרוֹת הַמְעֻטָּרוֹת אָסוּר לֵהָנוֹת בָּהֶן בְּכָל מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֶזְקָתָן שֶׁבִּגְלַל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים נִתְעַטְּרוּ וְשֶׁאֵינָן מְעֵטָּרוֹת מֻתָּרוֹת בַּהֲנָאָה. חֲנֻיּוֹת שֶׁל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אָסוּר לְשָׂכְרָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּהַנֶּה עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים: [The following laws apply] when an idol is located within a city and there some shops which are adorned and some which are not: It is forbidden to benefit from those which are adorned or [to use] anything they contain, since we can assume that they were adorned for the sake of idol worship. It is permitted to benefit from those which are not adorned.
It is forbidden to do business with a store owned by a false deity, because one offers benefit to the false deity.

הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים דָּמָיו אֲסוּרִים בַּהֲנָאָה וְיוֹלִיכֵם לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. אֲבָל עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁאָנְסוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגָזְלוּ בֵּיתוֹ וְהֶעֱמִידוּ בּוֹ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים דָּמָיו מֻתָּרִין, וְכוֹתֵב וּמַעֲלֶה בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם: When a person sells his house to an idol, it is forbidden to benefit from the proceeds of the sale. Rather, they must be taken to the Dead Sea. If, however, an idolater steals a Jew's house against his will and places an idol within, it is permitted [to accept whatever] money [he offers]. [The Jew] may compose [a bill of sale] and formalize it in accordance with the civil law procedures.

וַחֲלִילִין שֶׁל עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים אָסוּר לִסְפֹּד בָּהֶן. הוֹלְכִין לְיָרִיד שֶׁל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְלוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן בְּהֵמָה עֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת בְּגֵיוּתָן וּבָתִּים וְשָׂדוֹת וּכְרָמִים וְכוֹתֵב וּמַעֲלֶה בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמַצִּיל מִיָּדָם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן מֶכֶס אֲבָל הַלּוֹקֵחַ שָׁם מִן הַתַּגָּר אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן מֶכֶס וְהַמֶּכֶס לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְנִמְצָא זֶה מְהַנֶּה עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. עָבַר וְלָקַח מִן הַתַּגָּר. אִם בְּהֵמָה לָקַח מְנַשֵּׁר פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה. וְאִם כְּסוּת וְכֵלִים לָקַח יֵרָקְבוּ. לָקַח מָעוֹת וּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת יוֹלִיכֵם לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. לָקַח עֶבֶד לֹא מַעֲלִים וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין: Flutes belonging to idolaters should not be used in a funeral dirge.
One may attend a pagan commercial fair and purchase livestock, gentile servants and maidservants before they convert, houses, fields, and vineyards. One may compose a bill of sale and formalize it in accordance with the civil law procedures, since by doing so one saves [one's property] from them.
When does the above apply? When one buys from a private individual who does not have to pay a tax [to the false deity]. If, however, one buys from a merchant, it is forbidden, for a merchant must pay a tax which must be given to the false deity. Hence, [by making such a purchase], one is giving benefit to a false deity.
[The following laws apply] if one transgressed and purchased [merchandise] from a merchant: If one purchased livestock, one should cut off the animal's hooves from below the anklebone. If one purchased garments or other objects, one should let them rot. If one purchased money or metal utensils, one should bring them to the Dead Sea. If one purchased a servant, one may not help him up [from a pit], nor should one push him into one.

עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁעָשָׂה לִבְנוֹ אוֹ לְבִתּוֹ מִשְׁתֶּה אָסוּר לֵהָנוֹת מִסְּעֻדָּתוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ לֶאֱכל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִשֶּׁלּוֹ שָׁם אָסוּר הוֹאִיל וּבִמְסִבַּת עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים אֲכָלוֹ. וּמֵאֵימָתַי אָסוּר לֶאֱכל אֶצְלוֹ מִשֶּׁיַּתְחִיל לַעֲסֹק וּלְהָכִין צָרְכֵי סְעֻדָּה וְכָל יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה וּלְאַחַר יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וְאִם עָשָׂה סְעֻדָּה אַחֶרֶת מֵחֲמַת הַנִּשּׂוּאִין אֲפִלּוּ לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אָסוּר עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וְכָל הַהַרְחָקָה הַזֹּאת מִפְּנֵי עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁל כּוֹכָבִים הוּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות לד טו) "וְקָרָא לְךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ מִזִּבְחוֹ" (שמות לד טז) "וְלָקַחְתָּ מִבְּנֹתָיו לְבָנֶיךָ וְזָנוּ" וְגוֹ': When an idolater makes a [wedding] party for his son or daughter, it is forbidden to benefit from the feast. It is even forbidden for a Jew to eat and drink his own food there, since it is being consumed at a celebration of idolaters.
When is it forbidden to eat such an idolater's food? From when he began to prepare for the wedding feast, the entire duration of the wedding feast, and for thirty days afterwards. [Furthermore,] if he makes another celebration because of the wedding even after thirty days have passed, it is forbidden [to participate] until twelve months [have passed].
This stringency was imposed because of idol worship, as [implied by Exodus 34:15-16]: "And he shall call to you and you shall eat from his slaughter, and you shall choose from his daughters for your sons. His daughters will stray after their gods, and they will lead your sons astray after these gods."

בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תֵּינִיק אֶת בְּנָהּ שֶׁל עוֹבֶדֶת כּוֹכָבִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּגַדֶּלֶת בֵּן לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. וְלֹא תְּיַלֵּד אֶת הַנָּכְרִית עַכּוּ"ם אֲבָל מְיַלֶּדֶת הִיא בְּשָׂכָר מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה. וְהַנָּכְרִית עַכּוּ"ם מְיַלֶּדֶת אֶת בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמֵינִיקָה אֶת בְּנָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תַּהַרְגֶנּוּ: A Jewish woman should not nurse the child of an idolater, since, by doing so, she raises a son who will be an idolater. She should not serve as a midwife for an idolatrous woman [without charge]. She may, however, do so for a fee, lest strife arise.
An idolatrous woman may serve as a midwife for a Jewess and nurse her child. [This must be done] in premises belonging to a Jew, lest the idolatrous woman kill the child.

הַהוֹלְכִין לְתַרְפּוּת עַכּוּ"ם אָסוּר לָשֵׂאת וְלָתֵת עִמָּהֶן וְהַבָּאִים מֻתָּרִין וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ קְשׁוּרִין זֶה בָּזֶה שֶׁאִם הָיוּ קְשׁוּרִין שֶׁמָּא דַּעְתָּן לַחֲזֹר. יִשְׂרָאֵל הַהוֹלֵךְ לְתַרְפּוּת עַכּוּ"ם, בַּהֲלִיכָה מֻתָּר לָשֵׂאת וְלָתֵת עִמּוֹ שֶׁמָּא יַחֲזֹר בּוֹ וּבַחֲזִירָה אָסוּר. יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּמָר בֵּין בַּהֲלִיכָה בֵּין בַּחֲזִירָה אָסוּר: It is forbidden to trade with [gentiles] on their way to reproachful places of idol worship, but it is permitted to trade with them when they return. This applies when they do not journey in a caravan. If, however, they are traveling in a caravan, they may change their mind and return.
If a Jew journeys to a reproachful place of idol worship, one may trade with him on his way, since he may change his mind. On his way back, it is forbidden. [It is forbidden to trade with] an apostate Jew on his way there and on his way back.

יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָלַךְ לְיָרִיד שֶׁל עַכּוּ"ם, בַּחֲזִירָה אָסוּר לָשֵׂאת וְלָתֵת עִמּוֹ שֶׁמָּא עַכּוּ"ם מָכַר לָהֶן שָׁם, וּדְמֵי עַכּוּ"ם בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲסוּרִים בַּהֲנָאָה וּבְיַד עַכּוּ"ם מֻתָּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה, וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין עִם עַכּוּ"ם הַבָּא מִן הַתַּרְפּוּת שֶׁל עַכּוּ"ם וְאֵין נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא מִן הַתַּרְפּוּת הַהוּא וְלֹא עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּמָר לֹא בַּהֲלִיכָתוֹ וְלֹא בַּחֲזִירָתוֹ: When a Jew attends a fair of idol worshipers it is forbidden to trade with him when he returns. Perhaps he sold an idol to them, and it is forbidden to benefit from the proceeds of the sale of idol worship possessed by a Jew.
It is, however, permitted to benefit from [the proceeds of the sale of an idol] possessed by an idolater. Therefore, it is permitted to trade with an idolater coming from such a fair, but not with a Jew. It is forbidden to trade with an apostate Jew on his way to and on his way from such a fair.

אֵין כּוֹרְתִין בְּרִית לְשׁבְעָה עֲמָמִין כְּדֵי שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה עִמָּהֶן שָׁלוֹם וְנָנִיחַ אוֹתָם לַעֲבֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז ב) "לֹא תִכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית" אֶלָּא יַחְזְרוּ מֵעֲבוֹדָתָם אוֹ יֵהָרְגוּ. וְאָסוּר לְרַחֵם עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז ב) "וְלֹא תְחָנֵּם". לְפִיכָךְ אִם רָאָה מֵהֶם אוֹבֵד אוֹ טוֹבֵעַ בַּנָּהָר לֹא יַעֲלֶנּוּ. רָאָהוּ נָטוּי לָמוּת לֹא יַצִּילֶנּוּ. אֲבָל לְאַבְּדוֹ בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ לְדָחֳפוֹ לַבּוֹר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה עִמָּנוּ מִלְחָמָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשִׁבְעָה עֲמָמִין אֲבָל הַמּוֹסְרִים וְהָאֶפִּיקוֹרוֹסִין מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הָיָה דִּין לְאַבְּדָן בְּיָד וּלְהוֹרִידָן עַד בְּאֵר שַׁחַת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיוּ מְצֵרִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמְסִירִין אֶת הָעָם מֵאַחֲרֵי ה': We may not draw up a covenant with idolaters which will establish peace between them [and us] and yet allow them to worship idols, as [Deuteronomy 7:2] states: "Do not establish a covenant with them." Rather, they must renounce their [idol] worship or be slain. It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states: "Do not be gracious to them."
Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him. It is, however, forbidden to cause one of them to sink or push him into a pit or the like, since he is not waging war against us.
To whom do the above apply? To gentiles. It is a mitzvah, however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God.

מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁאָסוּר לְרַפְּאוֹת עַכּוּ"ם אֲפִלּוּ בְּשָׂכָר. וְאִם הָיָה מִתְיָרֵא מֵהֶן אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה חוֹשֵׁשׁ מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה מְרַפֵּא בְּשָׂכָר אֲבָל בְּחִנָּם אָסוּר. וְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב הוֹאִיל וְאַתָּה מְצֻוֶּה לְהַחֲיוֹתוֹ מְרַפְּאִים אוֹתוֹ בְּחִנָּם: From the above, we can infer that it is forbidden to offer medical treatment to an idolater even when offered a wage. If, however, one is afraid of the consequences or fears that ill feeling will be aroused, one may treat them for a wage, but to treat them free is forbidden.
[With regard to] a ger toshav, since we are commanded to secure his well-being, he may be given medical treatment at no cost.

אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם בָּתִּים וְשָׂדוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּבְסוּרְיָא מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם בָּתִּים אֲבָל לֹא שָׂדוֹת. וּמַשְׂכִּירִין לָהֶם בָּתִּים בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשׂוּ שְׁכוּנָה וְאֵין שְׁכוּנָה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה. וְאֵין מַשְׂכִּירִין לָהֶם שָׂדוֹת. וּבְסוּרְיָא מַשְׂכִּירִין לָהֶם שָׂדוֹת. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הֶחְמִירוּ בְּשָׂדֶה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שְׁתַּיִם, מַפְקִיעָהּ מִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לָהֶם חֲנִיָּה בַּקַּרְקַע. וּמֻתָּר לִמְכֹּר לָהֶם בָּתִּים וְשָׂדוֹת בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָהּ אַרְצֵנוּ: It is forbidden to sell them homes and fields in Eretz Yisrael. In Syria, one may sell them homes, but not fields.
One may rent them homes in Eretz Yisrael, provided that a neighborhood [of idolaters] is not established. Fewer than three [homes] does not constitute a neighborhood. It is, however, forbidden to rent them fields. In Syria, one may rent them fields.
Why did [the Rabbis issue] more stringent laws regarding fields? Because two difficulties are involved: One removes the obligation of tithes [from these fields], and one gives them a resting place in our land.
It is permitted to sell them houses and fields in the Diaspora, because it is not our land.

אַף בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהִתִּירוּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר לֹא לְבֵית דִּירָה הִתִּירוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַכְנִיס לְתוֹכָהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְנֶאֱמַר (דברים ז כו) "לֹא תָבִיא תוֹעֵבָה אֶל בֵּיתֶךָ". אֲבָל מַשְׂכִּיר לָהֶן בָּתִּים לַעֲשׂוֹתָן אוֹצָר. וְאֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן פֵּרוֹת וּתְבוּאָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בַּמְחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע. אֲבָל מוֹכֵר הוּא מִשֶּׁיָקֹץ אוֹ מוֹכֵר לוֹ עַל מְנָת לָקֹץ וְקוֹצֵץ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז ב) "וְלֹא תְחָנֵּם" לֹא תִּתֵּן לָהֶם חֲנִיָּה בַּקַּרְקַע שֶׁאִם לֹא יִהְיֶה לָהֶם קַרְקַע יְשִׁיבָתָן יְשִׁיבַת עַרְאַי הִיא. וְכֵן אָסוּר לְסַפֵּר בְּשִׁבְחָן וַאֲפִלּוּ לוֹמַר כַּמָּה נָאֶה עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים זֶה בְּצוּרָתוֹ. קַל וָחֹמֶר שֶׁיְּסַפֵּר בְּשֶׁבַח מַעֲשָׂיו אוֹ שֶׁיְּחַבֵּב דָּבָר מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְלֹא תְחָנֵּם לֹא יִהְיֶה לָהֶם חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגּוֹרֵם לְהִדַּבֵּק עִמּוֹ וְלִלְמֹד מִמַּעֲשָׂיו הָרָעִים. וְאָסוּר לִתֵּן לָהֶם מַתְּנַת חִנָּם אֲבָל נוֹתֵן הוּא לְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד כא) "לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכֹר לְנָכְרִי", בִּמְכִירָה וְלֹא בִּנְתִינָה: Even when it is permitted to rent [homes to idolaters], it is not permitted to rent to them for use as a dwelling, because they will bring idols into them, as [Deuteronomy 7:26] states: "Do not bring an abomination into your home." It is, however, permitted to rent them homes to use as storehouses.
It is forbidden to sell them fruit, grain, or other produce while it is attached to the earth. One may sell [these products] after they have been harvested or [before they have been harvested], on the condition that they will be harvested, and he must harvest them.
Why is it forbidden to sell them [land or anything attached to the land]? Because [Deuteronomy 7:2] states: "Do not be gracious with them." [This phrase can also be interpreted:] "Do not give them a resting place in the land." As long as they do not have a resting place in the land, their stay will be a temporary one.
[This prohibition also] forbids speaking about [idolaters] in a praiseworthy manner. It is even forbidden to say, "Look how beautiful that idolater's body is." How much more so is it forbidden to praise their deeds or to hold their words dear, as [the phrase states]: "Do not be gracious with them." [This phrase can also be interpreted:] "Do not look at them graciously," for doing so will cause you to draw close to them and learn from their wicked behavior.
[Also implicit in the above phrase is that] it is forbidden to give them a present. A present may, however, be given to a ger toshav, [as implied by Deuteronomy 14:21:] "You may give it to the stranger in your gates so that he may eat it; or sell it to a gentile," [i.e., to an idolater]; it should be sold, not given.

מְפַרְנְסִים עֲנִיֵּי עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים עִם עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. וְאֵין מְמַחִין בִּידֵי עֲנִיֵּי עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים בְּלֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. וְשׁוֹאֲלִים בִּשְׁלוֹמָם וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּיוֹם חַגָּם מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. וְאֵין כּוֹפְלִין לָהֶן שָׁלוֹם לְעוֹלָם. וְלֹא יִכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים בְּיוֹם חַגּוֹ לָתֵת לוֹ שָׁלוֹם. מְצָאוֹ בַּשּׁוּק נוֹתֵן לוֹ שָׁלוֹם בְּשָׂפָה רָפָה וּבְכֹבֶד רֹאשׁ: We should provide for poor idolaters together with poor Jews for the sake of peace. One should not rebuke idolaters [from taking] leket, shich'chah, and pe'ah, for the sake of peace. One may inquire about their well-being - even on their festivals - for the sake of peace.
One may never repeat good wishes to them. Also, one should not enter the house of a gentile on one of his festivals to wish him well. If one encounters him in the marketplace, one may greet him meekly with a serious countenance.

אֵין כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁגָּלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְבֵין הָעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים אוֹ שֶׁיַּד עַכּוּ"ם תַּקִּיפָה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁיַּד יִשְׂרָאֵל תַּקִּיפָה עֲלֵיהֶם אָסוּר לָנוּ לְהַנִּיחַ עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים בֵּינֵינוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ יוֹשֵׁב יְשִׁיבַת עַרְאַי אוֹ עוֹבֵר מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם בִּסְחוֹרָה לֹא יַעֲבֹר בְּאַרְצֵנוּ אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג לג) "לֹא יֵשְׁבוּ בְּאַרְצְךָ" אֲפִלּוּ לְפִי שָׁעָה. וְאִם קִבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב. וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַן הַיּוֹבֵל אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אֶלָּא גֵּר צֶדֶק בִּלְבַד: All the above matters apply only in an era when Israel is in exile among the idolaters or in an era when the idolaters are in power. When, however, Israel is in power over them, it is forbidden for us to allow an idolater among us.
Even a temporary resident or a merchant who travels from place to place should not be allowed to pass through our land until he accepts the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants, as [Exodus 23:33] states: "They shall not dwell in your land" - i.e., even temporarily.
A person who accepts these seven mitzvot is a ger toshav. A ger toshav may be accepted only in the era when the [laws of the] Jubilee Year are observed. In an era when the [laws of the] Jubilee Year are not observed, however, we may accept only full converts [to Judaism].

אֵין הוֹלְכִין בְּחֻקּוֹת הָעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים וְלֹא מִדַּמִּין לָהֶן לֹא בְּמַלְבּוּשׁ וְלֹא בְּשֵׂעָר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ כג) "וְלֹא תֵלְכוּ בְּחֻקּוֹת הַגּוֹי". וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יח ג) "וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶם לֹא תֵלֵכוּ". וְנֶאֱמַר (דברים יב ל) "הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תִּנָּקֵשׁ אַחֲרֵיהֶם". הַכּל בְּעִנְיָן אֶחָד הוּא מַזְהִיר שֶׁלֹּא יִדְמֶה לָהֶן. אֶלָּא יִהְיֶה הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מֻבְדָּל מֵהֶן וְיָדוּעַ בְּמַלְבּוּשׁוֹ וּבִשְׁאָר מַעֲשָׂיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא מֻבְדָּל מֵהֶן בְּמַדָּעוֹ וּבְדֵעוֹתָיו. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר וָאַבְדִּל אֶתְכֶם מִן הָעַמִּים. לֹא יִלְבַּשׁ בְּמַלְבּוּשׁ הַמְיֻחָד לָהֶן. וְלֹא יְגַדֵּל צִיצִית רֹאשׁוֹ כְּמוֹ צִיצִית רֹאשָׁם. וְלֹא יְגַלֵּחַ מִן הַצְּדָדִין וְיַנִּיחַ הַשֵּׂעָר בָּאֶמְצַע כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין וְזֶה הַנִּקְרָא בְּלוֹרִית. וְלֹא יְגַלֵּחַ הַשֵּׂעָר מִכְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו מֵאֹזֶן לְאֹזֶן וְיַנִּיחַ הַפֶּרַע מִלְּאַחֲרָיו כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעוֹשִׂין הֵן. וְלֹא יִבְנֶה מְקוֹמוֹת כְּבִנְיַן הֵיכָלוֹת שֶׁל עַכּוּ"ם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנְסוּ בָּהֶן רַבִּים כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין. וְכָל הָעוֹשֶׂה אַחַת מֵאֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן לוֹקֶה: We may not follow the statutes of the idolaters or resemble them in their [style] of dress, coiffure, or the like, as [Leviticus 20:23] states: "Do not follow the statutes of the nation [that I am driving out before you]," as [Leviticus 18:3] states: "Do not follow their statutes," and as [Deuteronomy 12:30] states: "Be careful, lest you inquire after them."
[All these verses] share a single theme: they warn us not to try to resemble [the gentiles]. Instead, the Jews should be separate from them and distinct in their dress and in their deeds, as they are in their ideals and character traits. In this context, [Leviticus 20:26] states: "I have separated you from the nations [to be Mine]."
[Thus,] one may not wear a garment which is unique to them or grow the tresses of our hair as they do. We may not shave our heads from the sides and leave hair in the center as they do. This is called a blorit. We may not shave the hair on the front of our faces from ear to ear and leave a growth at the back of our heads as they do. We may not build Temples in order that many people may enter as they do. Whoever performs one of the above or a deed of this nature is [liable for] lashes.

עַכּוּ"ם שֶׁהָיָה מִסְתַּפֵּר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לִבְלוֹרִיתוֹ קָרוֹב שָׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת לְכָל רוּחַ שׁוֹמֵט אֶת יָדוֹ: When a Jew is cutting an idolater's hair, he must stop when he approaches within three fingerbreadths of his blorit on all sides.

יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה קָרוֹב לַמַּלְכוּת וְצָרִיךְ לֵישֵׁב לִפְנֵי מַלְכֵיהֶם וְהָיֳה לוֹ גְּנַאי לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא יִדְמֶה לָהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לִלְבּשׁ בְּמַלְבּוּשֵׁיהֶן וּלְגַלֵּחַ כְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין: A Jew who has an important position in a gentile kingdom and must sit before their kings, and would be embarrassed if he did not resemble them, is granted permission to wear clothes which resemble theirs and shave the hair on his face as they do.

אֵין מְנַחֲשִׁין כְּעַכּוּ"ם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כו) "לֹא תְנַחֲשׁוּ". כֵּיצַד הוּא הַנַּחַשׁ. כְּגוֹן אֵלּוּ שֶׁאוֹמְרִים הוֹאִיל וְנָפְלָה פִּתִּי מִפִּי אוֹ נָפַל מַקְלִי מִיָּדִי אֵינִי הוֹלֵךְ לְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי הַיּוֹם שֶׁאִם אֵלֵךְ אֵין חֲפָצַיי נַעֲשִׂים. הוֹאִיל וְעָבַר שׁוּעָל מִימִינִי אֵינִי יוֹצֵא מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתִי הַיּוֹם שֶׁאִם אֵצֵא יִפְגָּעֵנִי אָדָם רַמַּאי. וְכֵן אֵלּוּ שֶׁשּׁוֹמְעִים צִפְצוּף הָעוֹף וְאוֹמְרִים יִהְיֶה כָּךְ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה כָּךְ. טוֹב לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּבָר פְּלוֹנִי וְרַע לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּבָר פְּלוֹנִי. וְכֵן אֵלּוּ שֶׁאוֹמְרִים שְׁחֹט תַּרְנְגוֹל זֶה שֶׁקָּרָא עַרְבִית. שְׁחֹט תַּרְנְגלֶת זוֹ שֶׁקָּרְאָה כְּמוֹ תַּרְנְגוֹל. וְכֵן הַמֵּשִׂים סִימָנִים לְעַצְמוֹ אִם יֶאֱרַע לִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ אֶעֱשֶׂה דָּבָר פְּלוֹנִי וְאִם לֹא יֶאֱרַע לִי לֹא אֶעֱשֶׂה, כֶּאֱלִיעֶזֶר עֶבֶד אַבְרָהָם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ הַכּל אָסוּר. וְכָל הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה מִפְּנֵי דָּבָר מִדְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ לוֹקֶה: It is forbidden to practice soothsaying as idolaters do, as [Leviticus 19:26] states: "Do not act as a soothsayer."
What is meant by a soothsayer? For example, those who say: Since my piece of bread fell out of my mouth, or my staff fell from my hand, I will not travel to this place today, since if I were to go I would not be able to accomplish my desires.
Since a fox passed on my right side, I will not go out of my door today, since if I were to go out I would meet a deceiver.
Similarly, [this category includes] those who hear the chirping of a bird and say: This will happen or this will not happen; it is beneficial to do this or it is detrimental to do this. [Also, it includes] those who say: Slaughter this rooster that crowed like a raven; slaughter this hen that crowed like a rooster.
Similarly, a person who sets up omens for himself; e.g., if this and this happens, I will do this. If it will not happen, I will not do it, as Eliezer, the servant of Abraham did, and the things of the like - all this is forbidden. Anyone who does one of these things because of such omens is [liable for] lashes.

מִי שֶׁאָמַר דִּירָה זוֹ שֶׁבָּנִיתִי סִימָן טוֹב הָיְתָה עָלַי. אִשָּׁה זוֹ שֶׁנָּשָׂאתִי וּבְהֵמָה זוֹ שֶׁקָּנִיתִי מְבֹרֶכֶת הָיְתָה מֵעֵת שֶׁקְּנִיתִיהָ עָשַׁרְתִּי. וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹאֵל לְתִינוֹק אֵי זֶה פָּסוּק אַתָּה לוֹמֵד אִם אָמַר לוֹ פָּסוּק מִן הַבְּרָכוֹת יִשְׂמַח וְיֹאמַר זֶה סִימָן טוֹב כָּל אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מֻתָּר הוֹאִיל וְלֹא כִּוֵּן מַעֲשָׂיו וְלֹא נִמְנַע מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת אֶלָּא עָשָׂה זֶה סִימָן לְעַצְמוֹ לְדָבָר שֶׁכְּבָר הָיָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: [A different ruling applies when] a person says, "This dwelling which I built will be a good omen for me"; "This woman whom I married or this animal that I purchased was blessed. From the time I purchased it onward, I have become rich."
The same applies to a person who rejoices and exclaims, "This is a good omen" when he asks a child, "Which verse are you studying?" and the child reads him a verse of blessing. This and the like are permitted, since the person did not perform an act or hold himself back from performing an act [because of the omen]. All he did was consider something that had already happened as a sign.

אֵיזֶהוּ קוֹסֵם זֶה הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה מִשְּׁאָר הַמַּעֲשִׂיּוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשּׁוֹם וְתִפָּנֶה מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ מִכָּל הַדְּבָרִים עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר דְּבָרִים שֶׁעֲתִידִים לִהְיוֹת וְיֹאמַר דָּבָר פְּלוֹנִי עָתִיד לִהְיוֹת אוֹ אֵינוֹ הוֹוֶה אוֹ שֶׁיֹּאמַר שֶׁרָאוּי לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן וְהִזָּהֲרוּ מִכָּךְ. יֵשׁ מִן הַקּוֹסְמִין שֶׁמְּשַׁמְּשִׁים בְּחל אוֹ בַּאֲבָנִים. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁגּוֹהֵר לָאָרֶץ וְיָנוּעַ וְצוֹעֵק. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁמִּסְתַּכֵּל בְּמַרְאָה שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל אוֹ בַּעֲשָׁשִׁית וּמְדַמִּין וְאוֹמְרִים. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁנּוֹשֵׂא מַקֵּל בְּיָדוֹ וְנִשְׁעָן עָלָיו וּמַכֶּה בּוֹ עַד שֶׁתִּפָּנֶה מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ וּמְדַבֵּר. הוּא שֶׁהַנָּבִיא אוֹמֵר עַמִּי בְּעֵצוֹ יִשְׁאָל וּמַקְלוֹ יַגִּיד לוֹ: What is meant by a diviner? This refers to a person who performs certain deeds to cause him to fall into a trance and have his mind cleared of all thoughts until he can predict the future, saying, "This will happen" or "This will not happen;" or saying, "it is proper to do such and such. Be careful to do so."
There are some diviners who use sand or stones [to obtain their answers]. Others prostrate themselves on the ground, make strange motions and scream. Others look at a metal or crystal mirror, fantasize, and speak. Still others carry a staff and lean on it and tap with it until they fall into a trance and speak. This is what the prophet [Hoshea 4:12 meant by] saying, "My people will inquire of their rods. Their staffs will tell them."

אָסוּר לִקְסֹם וְלִשְׁאל לְקוֹסֵם אֶלָּא שֶׁהַשּׁוֹאֵל לְקוֹסֵם מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת אֲבָל הַקּוֹסֵם עַצְמוֹ אִם עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה מִכָּל אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יח י) "לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ מַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ" וְגוֹ' (דברים יח י) "קֹסֵם קְסָמִים": It is forbidden to divine or to inquire of a diviner. A person who inquires of a diviner is given "stripes for rebelliousness." In contrast, the diviner himself is [punished by] lashes if he performs one of the above or other similar acts, as [Deuteronomy 18:10] states: "There shall not be found among you one who passes..., one who practices divination."

אֵיזֶהוּ מְעוֹנֵן אֵלּוּ נוֹתְנֵי עִתִּים שֶׁאוֹמְרִים בְּאִצְטַגְנִינוּת יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי טוֹב יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי רַע יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי רָאוּי לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ מְלָאכָה פְּלוֹנִית שָׁנָה פְּלוֹנִית אוֹ חֹדֶשׁ פְּלוֹנִי רַע לְדָבָר פְּלוֹנִי: Who is a fortuneteller? A person who tries to predict auspicious times, using astrology and saying, "This day will be a good day," "This day will be a bad day," "It is appropriate to perform a particular task on a certain day"; or "This year" or "This month will not be opportune for this particular matter."

אָסוּר לְעוֹנֵן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה אֶלָּא הוֹדִיעַ אוֹתָן הַכְּזָבִים שֶׁהַכְּסִילִים מְדַמִּין שֶׁהֵן דִּבְרֵי אֱמֶת וְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. וְכָל הָעוֹשֶׂה מִפְּנֵי הָאִצְטַגְנִינוּת וְכִוֵּן מְלַאכְתּוֹ אוֹ הֲלִיכָתוֹ בְּאוֹתוֹ הָעֵת שֶׁקָּבְעוּ הֹבְרֵי שָׁמַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כו) "לֹא תְעוֹנֵנוּ". וְכֵן הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינַיִם וּמְדַמֶּה בִּפְנֵי הָרוֹאִים שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה תִּמָּהוֹן וְהוּא לֹא עָשָׂה הֲרֵי זֶה בִּכְלַל מְעוֹנֵן וְלוֹקֶה: It is forbidden to tell fortunes. [This applies] even though one does not perform a deed, but merely relates the falsehoods which the fools consider to be words of truth and wisdom. Anyone who performs a deed because of an astrological calculation or arranges his work or his journeys to fit a time that was suggested by the astrologers is [liable for] lashes, as [Leviticus 19:26] states: "Do not tell fortunes."
Also included in the scope of this prohibition is one who performs magic tricks and deludes those who observe him into thinking that he performs wonders although he is not doing so. He is [liable for] lashes.

אֵיזֶהוּ חוֹבֵר זֶה שֶׁמְּדַבֵּר בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן לְשׁוֹן עַם וְאֵין לָהֶן עִנְיָן וּמַעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתּוֹ בְּסִכְלוּתוֹ שֶׁאוֹתָן הַדְּבָרִים מוֹעִילִין. עַד שֶׁהֵן אוֹמְרִים שֶׁהָאוֹמֵר כָּךְ וְכָךְ עַל הַנָּחָשׁ אוֹ עַל הָעַקְרָב אֵינוֹ מַזִּיק וְהָאוֹמֵר כָּךְ וְכָךְ עַל הָאִישׁ אֵינוֹ נִזּוֹק. וּמֵהֶן אוֹחֵז בְּיָדוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁמְּדַבֵּר מַפְתֵּחַ אוֹ סֶלַע וְכַיּוֹצֵא בַּדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ הַכּל אָסוּר. וְהַחוֹבֵר עַצְמוֹ שֶׁאָחַז בְּיָדוֹ כְּלוּם אוֹ שֶׁעָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה עִם דִּבּוּרוֹ אֲפִלּוּ הֶרְאָה בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יח י) "לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ" וְגוֹ' (דברים יח יא) "וְחֹבֵר חָבֶר". אֲבָל אִם אָמַר דְּבָרִים בִּלְבַד וְלֹא הֵנִיד לֹא אֶצְבַּע וְלֹא רֹאשׁ וְלֹא הָיָה בְּיָדוֹ כְּלוּם. וְכֵן אָדָם שֶׁאָמַר עָלָיו הֶחָבֵר אוֹתָן הַקּוֹלוֹת וְהוּא יוֹשֵׁב לְפָנָיו וּמְדַמֶּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּזֶה הֲנָאָה מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתֵּף בְּסִכְלוּת הַחֹבֵר. וְכָל אוֹתָן הַקּוֹלוֹת וְהַשֵּׁמוֹת הַמְשֻׁנִּים הַמְכֹעָרִים לֹא יָרֵעוּ וְגַם הֵיטֵב אֵין אוֹתָם: Who is a person who casts spells? A person who chants incantations that have no meaning in people's speech or any connotation and imagines in his foolish perception that his words have an effect. Such people will say: If you cast a particular spell on a snake or a scorpion, they will do no harm. If you cast a particular spell on a person, he will never be harmed. Some of them will hold a key or a rock in their hands while they are talking, or perform other similar deeds. All of these are forbidden.
A person who casts spells is [punished by lashes] if he holds anything in his hand or performs an act while speaking, even if he merely gestures with his finger, as [Deuteronomy 18:10-11] states: "There shall not be found among you... one who casts spells." If, however, the person merely spoke without moving his finger or his head and without holding anything in his hand, and similarly, a person who has a spell cast upon him through the utterance of such incantations, thinking that this will help him, he is given "stripes for rebelliousness" because he participated in the foolish activities of a spell-caster.
All these deplorable incantations and strange names will not do harm, nor will they bring any benefit.

מִי שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ עַקְרָב אוֹ נָחָשׁ מֻתָּר לִלְחשׁ עַל מְקוֹם הַנְּשִׁיכָה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת כְּדֵי לְיַשֵּׁב דַּעְתּוֹ וּלְחַזֵּק לִבּוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַדָּבָר מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם הוֹאִיל וּמְסֻכָּן הוּא הִתִּירוּ לוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּטָּרֵף דַּעְתּוֹ עָלָיו: When a person has been bitten by a scorpion or a snake, it is permitted to recite incantations over the bite. [This is permitted] - even on the Sabbath - in order to settle his mind and strengthen his feelings. Even though [the incantations] are of no avail, since the victim's life is in danger, permission was granted lest he become overly disturbed.

הַלּוֹחֵשׁ עַל הַמַּכָּה וְקוֹרֵא פָּסוּק מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְכֵן הַקּוֹרֵא עַל הַתִּינוֹק שֶׁלֹּא יִבָּעֵת וְהַמַּנִּיחַ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אוֹ תְּפִלִּין עַל הַקָּטָן בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּישַׁן. לֹא דַּי לָהֶם שֶׁהֵם בִּכְלַל מְנַחֲשִׁים וְחוֹבְרִים אֶלָּא שֶׁהֵן בִּכְלַל הַכּוֹפְרִים בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה רְפוּאַת גּוּף וְאֵינָן אֶלָּא רְפוּאַת נְפָשׁוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ג כב) "וְיִהְיוּ חַיִּים לְנַפְשֶׁךָ". אֲבָל הַבָּרִיא שֶׁקָּרָא פְּסוּקִין וּמִזְמוֹר מִתְּהִלִּים כְּדֵי שֶׁתָּגֵן עָלָיו זְכוּת קְרִיאָתָן וְיִנָּצֵל מִצָּרוֹת וּמִנְּזָקִים הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: A person who whispers an incantation over a wound and then recites a verse from the Torah, who recites a verse over a child so that he will not become scared, or who places a Torah scroll or tefillin over a baby so that it will sleep, is considered to be a soothsayer or one who cast spells. Furthermore, such people are included among those who deny the Torah, because they relate to the words of Torah as if they are cures for the body, when, in fact, they are cures for the soul, as [Proverbs 3:22] states: "And they shall be life for your soul."
It is, however, permitted for a healthy person to read verses [from the Bible] or chapters from Psalms so that the merit of reading them will protect him and save him from difficulties and injury.

אֵיזֶהוּ דּוֹרֵשׁ אֶל הַמֵּתִים זֶה הַמַּרְעִיב אֶת עַצְמוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ וְלָן בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּבוֹא מֵת בַּחֲלוֹם וְיוֹדִיעוֹ מַה שֶּׁשָּׁאַל עָלָיו. וְיֵשׁ אֲחֵרִים שֶׁהֵם לוֹבְשִׁים מַלְבּוּשִׁים יְדוּעִים וְאוֹמְרִים דְּבָרִים וּמַקְטִירִין קְטֹרֶת יְדוּעָה וִישֵׁנִים לְבַדָּן כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּבוֹא מֵת פְּלוֹנִי וִיסַפֵּר עִמּוֹ בַּחֲלוֹם. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר כָּל הָעוֹשֶׂה כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּבוֹא הַמֵּת וְיוֹדִיעוֹ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יח י) "לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ מַעֲבִיר" וְגוֹ' (דברים יח יא) "וְדֹרֵשׁ אֶל הַמֵּתִים": Who is one who seeks [information] from the dead? A person who starves himself and goes to sleep in a cemetery so that a deceased person will come to him in a dream and reply to his questions. There are others who wear special clothes, recite incantations, burn a particular type of incense, and sleep alone so that a deceased person will come to them and speak to them in a dream. To summarize: Anyone who performs a deed in order that a deceased person should come to him and give him information is [liable for] lashes, as [Deuteronomy 18:10] states: "There shall not be found among you one who passes..., one who seeks [information] from the dead."

אָסוּר לִשְׁאל בַּעַל אוֹב אוֹ בַּעַל יִדְּעֹנִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יח י) "לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ מַעֲבִיר" וְגוֹ' (דברים יח יא) "וְשֹׁאֵל אוֹב וְיִדְּעֹנִי". נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁבַּעַל אוֹב וְיִדְּעֹנִי עַצְמָן בִּסְקִילָה וְהַנִּשְׁאָל בָּהֶן בְּאַזְהָרָה וּמַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְאִם כִּוֵּן מַעֲשָׂיו וְעָשָׂה כְּפִי מֵאֲמָרָן לוֹקֶה: It is forbidden to inquire of a person who practices [divination with an] ov or a yid'oni, as [Deuteronomy 18:10-11] states: "There shall not be found among you one who passes..., one who seeks [information] from an ov or a yid'oni."
Thus, a person who practices [divination with an] ov or a yid'oni himself is stoned to death, and a person who inquires of them violates a negative commandment and receives stripes for rebelliousness. One who plans his deeds and acts according to their instructions is [liable for] lashes.

הַמְכַשֵּׁף חַיָּב סְקִילָה וְהוּא שֶׁעָשָׂה מַעֲשֵׂה כְּשָׁפִים. אֲבָל הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינַיִם וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה שֶׁעָשָׂה וְהוּא לֹא עָשָׂה לוֹקֶה מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלָּאו זֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּמְכַשֵּׁף בִּכְלַל (דברים יח י) "לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ" הוּא וְלָאו שֶׁנִּתַּן לְאַזְהָרַת מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין הוּא וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב יז) "מְכַשֵּׁפָה לֹא תְחַיֶּה": A sorcerer must be condemned to execution by stoning. This applies when he commits a deed of sorcery. If, however, he merely deludes those who observe him into thinking that he is performing an act although he actually does not, he is given stripes for rebelliousness.
[The reason is] that the prohibition against sorcery is stated in the prohibition [Deuteronomy 18:10-11]: "There shall not be found among you one who... [practices sorcery]." It is, however, a prohibition which is punishable by execution by the court, as [Exodus 22:17] states: "Do not allow a witch to live." [Therefore,] lashes are not administered for its violation.

וּדְבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ כֻּלָּן דִּבְרֵי שֶׁקֶר וְכָזָב הֵן וְהֵם שֶׁהִטְעוּ בָּהֶן עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים הַקַּדְמוֹנִים לְגוֹיֵי הָאֲרָצוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנְהֲגוּ אַחֲרֵיהֶן. וְאֵין רָאוּי לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהֵם חֲכָמִים מְחֻכָּמִים לְהִמָּשֵׁךְ בַּהֲבָלִים אֵלּוּ וְלֹא לְהַעֲלוֹת עַל לֵב שֶׁיֵּשׁ תּוֹעֶלֶת בָּהֶן. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כג כג) "כִּי לֹא נַחַשׁ בְּיַעֲקֹב וְלֹא קֶסֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל". וְנֶאֱמַר (דברים יח יד) "כִּי הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה יוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָם אֶל מְעֹנְנִים וְאֶל קֹסְמִים יִשְׁמָעוּ וְאַתָּה לֹא כֵן" וְגוֹ'. כָּל הַמַּאֲמִין בִּדְבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וּמְחַשֵּׁב בְּלִבּוֹ שֶׁהֵן אֱמֶת וּדְבַר חָכְמָה אֲבָל הַתּוֹרָה אֲסָרָתַן אֵינָן אֶלָּא מִן הַסְּכָלִים וּמְחֻסְּרֵי הַדַּעַת וּבִכְלַל הַנָּשִׁים וְהַקְּטַנִּים שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתָּן שְׁלֵמָה. אֲבָל בַּעֲלֵי הַחָכְמָה וּתְמִימֵי הַדַּעַת יֵדְעוּ בִּרְאָיוֹת בְּרוּרוֹת שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁאָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֵינָם דִּבְרֵי חָכְמָה אֶלָּא תֹּהוּ וְהֶבֶל שֶׁנִּמְשְׁכוּ בָּהֶן חַסְרֵי הַדַּעַת וְנָטְשׁוּ כָּל דַּרְכֵי הָאֱמֶת בִּגְלָלָן. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה כְּשֶׁהִזְהִירָה עַל כָּל אֵלּוּ הַהֲבָלִים (דברים יח יג) "תָּמִים תִּהְיֶה עִם ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ": All the above matters are falsehood and lies with which the original idolaters deceived the gentile nations in order to lead them after them. It is not fitting for the Jews who are wise sages to be drawn into such emptiness, nor to consider that they have any value as [implied by Numbers 23:23]: "No black magic can be found among Jacob, or occult arts within Israel." Similarly, [Deuteronomy 18:14] states: "These nations which you are driving out listen to astrologers and diviners. This is not [what God... has granted] you."
Whoever believes in [occult arts] of this nature and, in his heart, thinks that they are true and words of wisdom, but are forbidden by the Torah, is foolish and feebleminded. He is considered like women and children who have underdeveloped intellects.
The masters of wisdom and those of perfect knowledge know with clear proof that all these crafts which the Torah forbade are not reflections of wisdom, but rather, emptiness and vanity which attracted the feebleminded and caused them to abandon all the paths of truth. For these reasons, when the Torah warned against all these empty matters, it advised [Deuteronomy 18:13]: "Be of perfect faith with God, your Lord."

אֵין מְגַלְּחִין פַּאֲתֵי הָרֹאשׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹשִׂין עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כז) "לֹא תַקִּפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם". וְחַיָּב עַל כָּל פֵּאָה וּפֵאָה. לְפִיכָךְ הַמְגַלֵּחַ שְׁנֵי צְדָעָיו אֲפִלּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת וְהַתְרָאָה אַחַת לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. אֶחָד הַמְגַלֵּחַ הַפֵּאוֹת בִּלְבַד וּמֵנִיחַ שֵׂעָר כָּל הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶחָד הַמְגַלֵּחַ כָּל הָרֹאשׁ כְּאֶחָד לוֹקֶה הוֹאִיל וְגִלַּח הַפֵּאוֹת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּאִישׁ הַמְגַלֵּחַ אֲבָל אִישׁ הַמִּתְגַּלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן סִיֵּעַ לַמְגַלֵּחַ. וְהַמְגַלֵּחַ אֶת הַקָּטָן לוֹקֶה: We may not shave¹The Torah's prohibition applies only to shaving. One may cut this hair with scissors, as explained in Halachah 6. the corners of our heads²The definition of this term is found in Halachah 6. as the idolaters and their priests do,³Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 251) explains that this is a particularly severe prohibition, since its violation involves making a sign for idolatry on our own bodies. as [Leviticus 19:27] states: "Do not cut off the corners of your heads."
One⁴Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 43) and Sefer HaChinuch (ibid.) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. is liable for each corner. Therefore, a person who shaves both his temples⁵even if he were to do so simultaneously and had received only a single warning - is [liable for] two measures of lashes. - In Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.), the Rambam explains that although this prohibition involves two different activities (shaving the right corner and shaving the left corner), it is not considered to be two mitzvot, because the Torah's expression forbidding such shaving includes both sides in the same phrase. Had the Torah mentioned both the right and left sides, it would be considered to be two mitzvot.
[This prohibition applies equally to] one who shaves off only the corners of his head and leaves the remainder of his hair - As mentioned in Chapter 11, Halachah 1, this style of cutting hair is referred to as a blorit and was practiced by the gentiles. - even if he were to do so simultaneously and had received only a single warning – is [liable for] two measures of lashes.
[This prohibition applies equally to] one who shaves off only the corners of his head and leaves the remainder of his hair, and to one who shaves his entire head at once.⁶in which case, he does not resemble the gentiles (Sefer HaMitzvot, ibid.). Since he has shaved the corners, he is [liable for] lashes.⁷From this, we see that the mitzvah is not dependent on the rationale mentioned above.
To whom does the above apply? To the person who shaves - either his own head or a colleague's head. When, however, a person shaves a colleague's head,
To whom does the above apply? To the person who shaves. The person [whose head] is shaven is not lashed⁸The Ra'avad maintains that this person is not punished because he did not perform a deed. He is, however, considered to have transgressed the Torah's prohibition. The Kessef Mishneh disagrees and maintains that since he did not perform the deed of shaving, he is not considered to have violated the prohibition at all. This applies even when he specifically ordered the person who shaved him to do so. The Ra'avad's opinion is, however, supported by the Lechem Mishneh and other authorities. unless he assists the one who is shaving him.⁹by moving his head so that it is easier to shave. One who shaves [the corners of] a child's¹⁰a minor below the age of 13 [head] should be [liable for] lashes.¹¹A child would not be held responsible if he shaved himself, because a child is not held liable for the violation of any of the Torah's prohibitions until he reaches majority. Nevertheless, an adult is responsible for shaving the child's head (Nazir 57b).
This point is not, however, accepted by all authorities. The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) mentions other opinions which do not hold a person liable for shaving a child's head.

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁגִּלְּחָה פְּאַת רֹאשׁ הָאִישׁ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְגַלְּחָה פְּטוּרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כז) "לֹא תַקִּפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם" (ויקרא יט כז) "וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ" כָּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּבַל תַּשְׁחִית יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּבַל תַּקִּיף, וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּבַל תַּשְׁחִית לְפִי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ זָקָן אֵינָהּ בְּבַל תַּקִּיף. לְפִיכָךְ הָעֲבָדִים הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם זָקָן אֲסוּרִין בְּהַקָּפָה: A woman is exempt if she shaves the head of a man¹who would be liable if he shaved his own head or²assists the shaver while she has her own head shaven.³The Kessef Mishneh differentiates between these two instances. With regard to shaving a man's head, he explains that although a woman is exempt, she is, nevertheless, forbidden to do so (Halachah 5). With regard to shaving her own head, there is no prohibition whatsoever. [Since Leviticus 19:27] states: "Do not cut off the corners of your heads and do not destroy the corners of your beards," [an association between the two prohibitions is established].⁴This association also teaches other concepts - among them, that one is liable only when one removes the hair with a razor. Whoever is liable for shaving is liable for cutting off the corners. Therefore, because women are not liable for shaving⁵since they - generally - since they do not have beards⁶Although Kiddushin 35b mentions several ways to derive this concept through Biblical exegesis, the Rambam chooses to rely on the simple fact of the matter. - they are not liable for cutting off the corners [of their heads]. Accordingly, slaves⁷whose performance of mitzvot is generally equated with that of women (Chaggigah 4a) are forbidden to cut off the corners of their heads, since they do possess beards.⁸Had the Rambam derived the above point from the exegesis of a Biblical verse, this conclusion would not be acceptable. Since, however, he derives the concept from logic, the same logic leads to the conclusion that slaves be held liable for this act (Kessef Mishneh).

כָּל מִצְוֹת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִים חוּץ מִ"בַּל תַּשְׁחִית" וּ"בַל תַּקִּיף" וּ"בַל יִטָּמֵא כֹּהֵן לַמֵּתִים" (משנה קידושין א ז). וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהִיא מִזְּמַן לִזְמַן וְאֵינָהּ תְּדִירָה נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת חוּץ מִקִּדּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם וַאֲכִילַת מַצָּה בְּלֵילֵי הַפֶּסַח וַאֲכִילַת הַפֶּסַח וּשְׁחִיטָתוֹ וְהַקְהֵל וְשִׂמְחָה שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים חַיָּבוֹת: All the Torah's prohibitions apply equally to men and women,¹Kiddushin 35a derives this concept from Numbers 5:6, "When a man or a woman commits any of the transgressions that men commit...." with the exception of the prohibition against shaving, cutting off the corners of one's head,²as mentioned in the previous halachah, and the prohibition against priests contracting impurity through contact with a dead body.³The verse prohibiting such contact, Leviticus 21:1, begins, "Speak unto the sons of Aharon...."Kiddushin 35b explains that this expression excludes women.
Women are not obligated with regard to all positive commandments which apply from time to time and are not constant obligations,⁴This refers to mitzvot which are applicable only on certain days - e.g., the blowing of the shofar and the taking of the lulav and etrog - and also mitzvot that are applicable during the day and not the night - e.g., Tefillin. with the exception of the sanctification of [the Sabbath] day,⁵through the recitation of kiddush. Since women are obligated by the prohibition against working on the Sabbath, they are also obligated by the positive commandment of sanctifying its holiness (Berachot 20b).
The restriction of this mitzvah to the Sabbath follows the opinion of the Lechem Mishnah, who maintains that the sanctification of the festivals is a Rabbinic injunction. There are, however, other opinions, which consider the mitzvah as applying to the festivals as well. eating matzah on Pesach night,⁶Since women are obligated by the prohibition against eating chametz, they are also obligated by the positive commandment of eating matzah (Pesachim 43b). eating and offering the Paschal sacrifice,⁷Pesachim 91b explains that the Torah uses the expression (Exodus 12:4 : "According to the number of souls [in a household]... individuals should be designated for the lamb," to include women in the observance of this mitzvah. hakhel,⁸The gathering of the entire Jewish people to hear the reading of the Torah by the king which is held every seven years. (See Deuteronomy 31:10-13.) Here, the Torah explicitly mentions that women should attend. and the festive⁹Though in a larger sense this refers to all forms of celebration, in particular it refers to the offering of peace sacrifices in connection with the festival. (See Hilchot Chaggigah 1:1.)
In this instance as well, the Torah specifically mentions the obligation of women to participate in the celebrations, as Deuteronomy 16:14 states: "And you shall rejoice, you, your son, your daughter, your male and female servants...." peace-offering for which they are obligated.¹⁰Similarly, women are obligated to fulfill most positive commandments whose observance is not associated with a specific time - e.g., the belief in God, mezuzah, and Tzedakah. There are, however, several positive commandments whose observance is not associated with a specific time which women are not obligated to fulfill - e.g., Torah study, the redemption of the first born, and the remembrance of Amalek. (See also the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Kiddushin 1:7.)

טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס הֲרֵי הֵן סָפֵק, נוֹתְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן חֻמְרֵי הָאִישׁ וְחֻמְרֵי הָאִשָּׁה בְּכָל מָקוֹם וְחַיָּבִים בַּכּל. וְאִם עָבְרוּ אֵינָם לוֹקִין: The status of a tumtum¹The word tumtum has its roots in the word atum, which means "a solid block." It refers to a person whose genitalia are covered by skin, and it is impossible to determine whether he is male or female. (See also Hilchot Ishut 2:25.)
Should a tumtum undergo an operation and it be revealed that he is either male or female, he is bound by the laws which apply to that gender. and an androgynous²Androgynous is a combination of the Greek words meaning "man" and "woman." It refers to a person who possesses the sexual organs of both genders. (See also Hilchot Ishut 2:24.) is doubtful.³i.e., it is doubtful whether they are governed by the laws applying to a man or those applying to a woman. The doubts are, however, different in nature. With regard to a tumtum, we are doubtful what is his true gender. With regard to an androgynous, however, the question revolves around the Sages' failure to define his status. Therefore, the stringencies applying to both a man⁴The obligation to perform all the positive commandments that are associated with time, and the various other commandments which men are obligated to perform, but women are not. and a woman⁵Bikkurim 4:3 explains that this refers to the prohibition against being alone with men (yichud), and the laws of ritual impurity that apply to women. are applied to them, and they are obligated by all [the mitzvot]. If, however, they transgress,⁶any of the three commandments for which men are held liable and women are not they are not [liable for] lashes.⁷Punishment is not administered when we are in doubt of the person's obligation.

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה מֻתֶּרֶת לְגַלֵּחַ פְּאַת רֹאשָׁהּ הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְגַלֵּחַ פְּאַת רֹאשׁ הָאִישׁ. וַאֲפִלּוּ קָטָן אָסוּר לָהּ לְגַלֵּחַ לוֹ פֵּאָה: Although a woman is permitted to shave the corners of her own head,¹as mentioned in Halachah 2 she is forbidden to shave the corners of a man's head.²As stated in that halachah, she is not punished for doing so. The Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh maintain that this prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. Other authorities, however, state that the prohibition stems from the Torah itself. She is even forbidden to shave the corners of a child's [head].³Though the child himself would not be held liable, an adult is liable for shaving the corners of his head, as stated in Halachah 1. Therefore, even a woman is forbidden to shave the corners of his head. Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, based on Nazir 57b, does not accept the Rambam's view, and maintains that a woman may shave a child's head.

וּפֵאָה זוֹ שֶׁמַּנִּיחִים בַּצְּדָעִים לֹא נָתְנוּ בּוֹ חֲכָמִים שִׁעוּר וְשָׁמַעְנוּ מִזְּקֵנֵינוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעִים שְׂעָרוֹת. וּמֻתָּר לְלַקֵּט הַפֵּאוֹת בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם לֹא נֶאֱסַר אֶלָּא הַשְׁחָתָה בְּתַעַר: The Sages did not determine the amount [of hair] which must be left in the corners of our temples.¹The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 181:1, defines "corners" as referring to the place where the skull is joined to the jaw. The Beit Lechem Yehudah writes that the area which the Ari zal would leave uncut extended slightly above his ears. We have, however, heard from our elders that one must leave at least forty²The Tur's text of the Rambam stated "four" instead of "forty." hairs.
One may remove the [hairs³In one of his responsa, the Rambam writes that the forbidden area is about the size of a thumb.
One may remove the [hairs from] the corners [of our heads] with scissors. - In one of his responsa, the Rambam writes that he would trim the corners of his head. He explains that - in contrast to the law applying to a Nazarite's hair - there is no positive commandment to allow this hair to grow and no need to do so. In many Jewish communities, however, it is customary to allow this hair to grow. Since its removal involves the violation of a Torah prohibition, they consider the growth of this hair as a sign of Jewish identity. from] the corners [of our heads] with scissors. The prohibition applies only to total removal with a razor.⁴As is explained in the commentary on the following halachah, there is a debate among the Rabbinic authorities if it is permissible to remove this hair using scissors or even using implements whose effectiveness is equivalent to that of a razor.

דֶּרֶךְ כֹּהֲנֵי עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים הָיָה לְהַשְׁחִית זְקָנָם. לְפִיכָךְ אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה לְהַשְׁחִית הַזָּקָן. וְחָמֵשׁ פֵּאוֹת יֵשׁ בּוֹ. לְחִי הָעֶלְיוֹן וּלְחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן מִיָּמִין וְכֵן מִשְּׂמֹאל וְשִׁבּלֶת הַזָּקָן. וְלוֹקֶה עַל כָּל פֵּאָה וּפֵאָה. וְאִם נְטָלָן כֻּלָּן כְּאַחַת לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּגַלְּחֶנּוּ בְּתַעַר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כז) "וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית אֵת פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ" גִּלּוּחַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הַשְׁחָתָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם גִּלֵּחַ זְקָנוֹ בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם פָּטוּר. וְאֵין הַמִּתְגַּלֵּחַ לוֹקֶה עַד שֶׁיְּסַיֵּעַ. וְאִשָּׁה מֻתֶּרֶת לְהַשְׁחִית זְקָנָהּ אִם יֵשׁ לָהּ שֵׂעָר בַּזָּקָן. וְאִם הִשְׁחִיתָה זְקַן הָאִישׁ פְּטוּרָה: It is customary for pagan priests to remove their beards.¹Note our commentary on Halachah 1. In Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 44), the Rambam notes that even in his time, it was customary for Christian monks to shave their faces. Therefore, the Torah forbade the removal of one's beard.²Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 252) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The beard has five "corners": the upper and lower cheek on both the right and left sides, and the hair on the chin.³The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 181:11) writes that there are many opinions with regard to the definition of these five "corners." There, "anyone who fears heaven should fulfill all the opinions and not shave any portion of his beard with a razor." One is [liable for] lashes for the removal of each "corner."⁴As implied by the verse's mention of "the corners of your beard," and not merely "your beard" (Sefer HaMitzvot, ibid.). A person who removes them all at the same time is [liable for] five measures of lashes.⁵Nevertheless, as explained in the commentary on Halachah 1, the prohibition is considered to be a single mitzvah, and not five.
One is liable only when one shaves with a razor, as [implied by Leviticus 19:27]: "Do not destroy the corners of your beard." [We can infer that this applies only] to shaving which utterly destroys [one's facial hair]. Therefore, a person who removes his beard with scissors is exempt. - From the Rambam's expression, it appears that the removal of facial hair with scissors is forbidden. One is not, however, punished for such an act (Sefer HaChinuch, ibid.; Ma'aseh Rokeach). The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 181) differs, and maintains that it is permitted to remove one's facial hair as long as one does not use a razor.
In addition, as mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 1, the Minchat Chinuch and Sefer HaKovetz explain that by mentioning the fact that gentile priests remove their facial hair, the Rambam implies that removing such hair violates the prohibition of following "the paths of the gentiles." (See Chapter 11, Halachah 1.) In the context of this prohibition, the means used to remove the facial hair are of no consequence.
Other authorities (Rashba, Vol. IV, Responsum 90; Shibbolei Leket; Tzemach Tzedek, Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 93) forbid the removal of one's facial hair within the context of the prohibition against a man's adorning himself in the same manner as a woman. (See Halachot 9 and 10.) In this context as well, it makes no difference how one removes the hair.
Many contemporary authorities have explained that in addition to all these points, growing a beard has been accepted as a sign that a person is God-fearing and precise in his observance of the mitzvot. Accordingly, anyone who desires to be viewed as such should not remove his beard even if he does not use a razor.
A person who allows himself to be shaved is not [liable for] lashes unless he provides assistance. - Note our commentary on Halachah 1.
One is liable only when one shaves with a razor, as [implied by Leviticus 19:27]: "Do not destroy the corners of your beard." [We can infer that this applies only] to shaving which utterly destroys [one's facial hair]. Therefore, a person who removes his beard with scissors is exempt.
A person who allows himself to be shaved is not [liable for] lashes unless he provides assistance. A woman who has facial hair is allowed to shave it.⁶since this is not the norm. Kiddushin 35b derives this concept from the exegesis of the verse from Leviticus quoted above. If she shaves a man's beard, she is exempt.⁷It is, however, forbidden for her to do so, as explained in Halachah 1.

הַשָּׂפָה מֻתָּר לְגַלְּחוֹ בְּתַעַר וְהוּא הַשֵּׂעָר שֶׁעַל גַּב הַשָּׂפָה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה וְכֵן הַשֵּׂעָר הַמְדֻלְדָּל מִן הַשָּׂפָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר לֹא נָהֲגוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַשְׁחִיתוֹ אֶלָּא יְגַלֵּחַ קְצָתוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא יְעַכֵּב אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה: It is permitted to shave one's mustache¹i.e., the hair on the upper lip, and, similarly, the hair which hangs from the lower lip. - Mo'ed Katan 18a allows the shaving of this hair because it is not one of the five "corners" of the beard. - i.e., the hair on the upper lip, and, similarly, the hair which hangs from the lower lip. Even though the removal [of this hair] is permitted, it is customary for the Jews not to destroy it entirely.²This statement reinforces the interpretation mentioned in the previous halachah, that maintains which the Rambam did not allow one's facial hair to be removed by means other than shaving.
It must be noted that there are authorities who object to the shaving of the mustache. Rabbenu Chanan'el explained that the corners of the mustache are the two lower "corners" of the beard. Others (among them Rabbenu Yonah and the Bayit Chadash) associate its removal with the prohibitions against following the "ways of gentiles" and adorning oneself as does a woman. Rather, its ends may be removed so that it will not interfere with eating or drinking.³The Rabbis have explained that it is proper manners to remove the hair which interferes with eating. Even the Kabbalists who would not touch their beards at all would trim their mustaches (Ben Ish Chai).

הַעֲבָרַת הַשֵּׂעָר מִשְּׁאָר הַגּוּף כְּגוֹן בֵּית הַשֶּׁחִי וּבֵית הָעֶרְוָה אֵינוֹ אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וְהַמַּעֲבִירוֹ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא נָשִׁים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְתַקֵּן עַצְמוֹ תִּקּוּן נָשִׁים. אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁמַּעֲבִירִין הַשֵּׂעָר הַנָּשִׁים וַאֲנָשִׁים אִם הֶעֱבִיר אֵין מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ. וּמֻתָּר לְהַעֲבִיר שְׂעַר שְׁאָר אֵיבָרִים בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם בְּכָל מָקוֹם: The Torah does not forbid the removal of hair from other portions of the body¹e.g., the armpits or the genitalia - which are often shaved by women. - e.g., the armpits or the genitalia. This is, however, prohibited by the Rabbis.²as an extension of the prohibition against a man beautifying himself in the same manner as a woman does. The classification of the removal of such hair as a Rabbinic prohibition is not agreed upon by all authorities. The Tzemach Tzedek (Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 93) brings opinions which maintain that shaving this hair is within the scope of the Torah prohibition.
The Kessef Mishneh explains the distinction between the Torah prohibition and the Rabbis' decree as follows: The Torah prohibition involves any adornment which is openly detectable. The Rabbis extended the scope of the prohibition and included even acts of beautification which are private. A man who removes [such hair] is given stripes for rebelliousness.³The punishment given for violating any Rabbinic ordinance.
Where does the above apply? In places where it is customary only for women to remove such hair, so that one will not beautify himself as women do. - Which is prohibited, as mentioned in the following halachah.
Where does the above apply? In places where it is customary only for women to remove such hair, so that one will not beautify himself as women do. In places where it is customary for both men⁴The Prisha (Yoreh De'ah 182) states that the word "men" refers even to gentiles. Even if gentile men follow this practice, a Jew is not punished for doing so. and women to remove such hair, one is not given stripes. It is permitted⁵The expression, "one is not given stripes," and the contrasting statement, "It is permitted," lead to the conclusion that, even in these communities, it is forbidden for men to remove this hair. The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 182:1) differs, and grants permission for men to remove such hair in these communities.
When there are medical reasons requiring the removal of such hair, even the more stringent views allow it to be shaved off (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 182:4). to remove hair from our other limbs with scissors⁶but not with a razor (Siftei Cohen 182:3). in all communities.

לֹא תַּעֲדֶה אִשָּׁה עֲדִי הָאִישׁ כְּגוֹן שֶׁתָּשִׂים בְּרֹאשָׁהּ מִצְנֶפֶת אוֹ כּוֹבַע אוֹ תִּלְבַּשׁ שִׁרְיוֹן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁתְּגַלֵּחַ רֹאשָׁהּ כְּאִישׁ. וְלֹא יַעֲדֶה אִישׁ עֲדִי אִשָּׁה כְּגוֹן שֶׁיִּלְבַּשׁ בִּגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִין וַחֲלִי זָהָב בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין לוֹבְשִׁין אוֹתָן הַכֵּלִים וְאֵין מְשִׂימִים אוֹתוֹ הַחֲלִי אֶלָּא נָשִׁים הַכּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה. אִישׁ שֶׁעָדָה עֲדִי אִשָּׁה וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁעָדְתָה עֲדִי אִישׁ לוֹקִין. הַמְלַקֵּט שְׂעָרוֹת לְבָנוֹת מִתּוֹךְ הַשְּׁחוֹרוֹת מֵרֹאשׁוֹ אוֹ מִזְּקָנוֹ מִשֶּׁיְּלַקֵּט שַׂעֲרָה אַחַת לוֹקֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָדָה עֲדִי אִשָּׁה. וְכֵן אִם צָבַע שְׂעָרוֹ שָׁחוֹר מִשֶּׁיִּצְבַּע שֵׂעָר לְבָנָה אַחַת לוֹקֶה. טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אֵינוֹ עוֹטֵף כְּאִשָּׁה וְלֹא מְגַלֵּחַ רֹאשׁוֹ כְּאִישׁ וְאִם עָשָׂה כֵּן אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: A woman should not adorn herself as a man does¹Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 39) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 542) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Curiously, with regard to this and the following prohibition, the Rambam departs from his usual custom and does not mention the Biblical proof-text, Deuteronomy 22:5, for these prohibitions.
e.g., she may not place a turban or a hat on her head - Needless to say, a hat that was styled for women is permitted. As the Rambam states later in the halachah, everything depends on local custom. - e.g., she may not place a turban or a hat on her head or wear armor²Many sources (e.g., Nazir 59a; Targum Onkelos on Deuteronomy, ibid.) directly associate this prohibition with a woman's donning armor or carrying weapons. Significantly, in the listing of mitzvot which precedes these halachot, the Rambam defines the mitzvah as prohibiting a woman from wearing "armament or a man's apparel." or the like. She may not cut [the hair of] her head as men do.³i.e., a woman's coiffure may not resemble a man's. The Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah read יגלה, "reveal," instead of יגלח, "cut." According to that version, the Rambam is saying that when a woman goes out without covering her head, in addition to violating the basic laws of modesty (see Hilchot Ishut 24:11-12; Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 21:17), she is also transgressing this Torah prohibition.
A man should not adorn himself as a woman does⁴Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 40) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 543) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
In Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.), the Rambam mentions two rationales for this and the previous prohibition:a) Such behavior would lead to licentiousness;b) The pagans would often dress in this manner for their rituals. - e.g., he should not wear colored garments or golden bracelets in a place where such garments and such bracelets are worn only by women. Everything follows local custom.⁵Accordingly, the definition of the pertinent rulings changes according to the norms of the society. Garments which might have been forbidden for men or women in one era may be permitted in another, depending on the standards set by the particular society.
A man who adorns himself as a woman does, and a woman who adorns herself as a man does, are [liable for] lashes. - Note the Ramah's statements, Orach Chayim 696:8, which state that on Purim or at a wedding, this prohibition may be waived for the sake of adding to the festive mood of the celebration. The Bayit Chadash and others, however, do not accept this leniency.
A man who adorns himself as a woman does, and a woman who adorns herself as a man does, are [liable for] lashes. When a man removes white hairs from among the dark hairs of his head or beard,⁶to prevent the process of aging from being detected he should be lashed⁷for violating this prohibition. The Ra'avad (see also Sho'el UMeshiv, Vol. I, Responsum 210) differs, and maintains that such an act violates only a Rabbinic prohibition. His opinion, however, is not accepted by the later authorities (Darchei Teshuvah 182:15). as soon as he removes a single hair, because he has beautified himself as a woman does.⁸Women are accustomed - and therefore, allowed - to hide their age, but not men. Similarly, if he dyes his hair dark, he is given lashes after dyeing a single hair.⁹The prohibition applies only when one attempts to look younger. Dyeing one's hair grey is not forbidden (Turei Zahav 182:7).
A tumtum and an androgynous¹⁰whose status with regard to gender is doubtful, as explained in Halachah 4. may not wrap their heads [in a veil] as women do, or cut [the hair of] their head as men do.¹¹As the Rambam states in that halachah, "the stringencies of both a man and a woman are applied to them." Hence, they are not allowed to clothe themselves in a manner which is distinct to either a man or a woman.
According to the Yemenite manuscripts mentioned above which substitute יגלה, "reveal," for יגלח, "cut," this clause also must be amended accordingly. If they do [either of the above], they are not [liable for] lashes.¹²because we are unsure of their gender. Accordingly, it cannot be definitely said that a prohibition has been violated.

כְּתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה הוּא שֶׁיִּשְׂרֹט עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ וִימַלֵּא מְקוֹם הַשְּׂרִיטָה כָּחל אוֹ דְּיוֹ אוֹ שְׁאָר צִבְעוֹנִים הָרוֹשְׁמִים. וְזֶה הָיָה מִנְהַג הָעַכּוּ"ם שֶׁרוֹשְׁמִין עַצְמָן לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא עֶבֶד מָכוּר לָהּ וּמֻרְשָׁם לַעֲבוֹדָתָהּ. וּמֵעֵת שֶׁיִּרְשֹׁם בְּאֶחָד מִדְּבָרִים הָרוֹשְׁמִין אַחַר שֶׁיִּשְׂרֹט בְּאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מִן הַגּוּף בֵּין אִישׁ בֵּין אִשָּׁה לוֹקֶה. כָּתַב וְלֹא רָשַׁם בְּצֶבַע אוֹ שֶׁרָשַׁם בְּצֶבַע וְלֹא כָּתַב בִּשְׂרִיטָה פָּטוּר עַד שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב וִיקַעֲקֵעַ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כח) "וּכְתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע". בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּכוֹתֵב אֲבָל זֶה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ בִּבְשָׂרוֹ וְקִעְקְעוּ בּוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן סִיֵּעַ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. אֲבָל אִם לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: The tattooing which the Torah forbids¹Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 41) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 253) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. involves making a cut in one's flesh and filling the slit with eye-color, ink, or with any other dye that leaves an imprint.²The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 253) states that the order mentioned by the Rambam is significant. If it is reversed and the ink is placed on the skin before an incision is made, one is exempt. TheSiftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 180:1), however, does not accept this view. This was the custom of the idolaters, who would make marks on their bodies for the sake of their idols,³branding themselves as if to say that they are like servants sold to the idol and designated for its service.⁴In Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.), the Rambam states that certain sects in Egypt followed these practices in his time as well.
When a person makes a mark with one of the substances that leave an imprint after making a slit in any place on his body, he is [liable for] lashes. - The Tosefta (Makkot 3:9) adds that one must have the intent that the inscription is made for the sake of idol worship. This point, however, is not accepted by the halachic authorities.
When a person makes a mark with one of the substances that leave an imprint after making a slit in any place on his body, he is [liable for] lashes. [This prohibition is binding on] both men and women.⁵The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 180:4, states that one is exempt for branding a servant. The Ramah, however, explains that it is, nevertheless, forbidden to do so.
If a person wrote⁶by cutting into his flesh and did not dye, or dyed without writing by cutting [into his flesh], he is not liable.⁷for punishment. The Rambam's expression implies that although the person is not lashed, both of these acts are forbidden.
The Minchat Chinuch (ibid.) explains that the prohibition against writing on one's flesh applies only when the imprint left by the ink or dye is permanent. If it is removable, it is not forbidden. In this manner, he justifies the acts of people who jot down notes on their flesh when they have no paper available. [Punishment is administered] only when he writes and dyes, as [Leviticus 19:28] states: "[Do not make] a dyed inscription [on yourselves]."
To⁸The two words "dyed inscription" imply that both activities must be performed for the person to be held liable.
To whom does this apply? To the person doing the tattooing - on himself or on a colleague. whom does this apply? To the person doing the tattooing. A person who is tattooed [by others], however, is not liable unless he assisted the tattooer to the extent that it is considered that he performed a deed. If he did not perform a deed, he is not lashed.⁹The Kessef Mishneh compares this to the prohibition against shaving the corners of one's head (Halachah 1). Based on this comparison, there are authorities who maintain that although punishment is not administered - because punishment is administered only when a person commits a deed which violates a prohibition - the person who is tattooed is still considered to have transgressed this Torah prohibition.

הַשּׂוֹרֵט שְׂרִיטָה אַחַת עַל הַמֵּת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כח) "וְשֶׂרֶט לָנֶפֶשׁ לֹא תִתְּנוּ בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם". אֶחָד כֹּהֵן וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל. שָׂרַט שְׂרִיטָה אַחַת עַל חָמֵשׁ מֵתִים אוֹ חָמֵשׁ שְׂרִיטוֹת עַל מֵת אֶחָד לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ. וְהוּא שֶׁהִתְרוּ בּוֹ עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת: A person who gouges himself for the dead¹The prohibition applies only when a person makes such gouges as a sign of bereavement over the dead. Even when he gouges himself as an expression of grief for other matters, he is not liable, as stated in Halachah 16. Nevertheless, as stated in the following halachah, one is also liable for gashing or gouging oneself for idols. is lashed, as [Leviticus 19:28] states: "Do not gouge your flesh for the dead."²Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 45) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 467) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This [prohibition] applies both to priests and to Israelites.³Though Leviticus 21:5 specifically forbids the priests from expressing their grief in this manner, that injunction is not considered to be a separate commandment. This prohibition applies to both men and women.
A person who makes a single gouge for five dead people -Makkot 20b and the Sifra derive this concept through the exegesis of the verse from Leviticus cited above. Although he performs only a single activity, the verse teaches us that he is held responsible for each person he has in mind.
A person who makes a single gouge for five dead people or five gouges for a single dead person is [liable for] five measures of lashes,⁴Each separate act warrants retribution. provided he is given a warning for each individual matter.⁵Note Halachah 15, which explains an instance where one is liable for five measures of lashes even though only a single warning is given, Seemingly, the same law would apply in this instance (Turei Even).

גְּדִידָה וּשְׂרִיטָה אַחַת הִיא. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁהָיוּ הָעַכּוּ"ם שׂוֹרְטִים בִּבְשָׂרָם עַל מֵתֵיהֶם מִפְּנֵי הַצַּעַר כָּךְ הָיוּ חוֹבְלִין בְּעַצְמָם לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלכים א יח כח) "וַיִּתְגֹּדְדוּ כְּמִשְׁפָּטָם". גַּם זֶה אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד א) "לֹא תִתְגֹּדְדוּ". אֶלָּא שֶׁעַל מֵת בֵּין שָׂרַט בְּיָדוֹ בֵּין שָׂרַט בִּכְלִי לוֹקֶה. לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים בִּכְלִי חַיָּב מַלְקוֹת בְּיָדוֹ פָּטוּר: Gashing and gouging oneself¹Based on Makkot 21a, it appears that gashing is done with an instrument, and gouging with one's bare hands. Nevertheless, they are [governed by] a single [prohibition].²Thus, regardless of how one performs the act, if one mutilates oneself in grief over the dead, one is held liable. There are opinions (see Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 180:7), however, which allow one to beat one's flesh in grief until blood flows. Just as the pagans would gouge their flesh in grief over their dead, they would mutilate themselves for their idols,³TheKessef Mishneh explains that this mutilation was not part of the rites used to worship the false deity - for if so, a violator would be executed - but rather a voluntary act, intended to attract the deity's attention. as [I Kings 18:28] states:⁴regarding the prophets of the Baal who engaged in the confrontation with the prophet Elijah at Mount Carmel: "And they mutilated themselves according to their custom."
This⁵This implies that this was not an isolated occurrence, but rather the routine followed by the Baal's priests.
This is also forbidden by the Torah, as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: "Do not mutilate yourselves." - This injunction is not considered to be a separate commandment, but rather a further explanation of the mitzvah stated previously.
[The difference between the two is that if one gouges himself in grief over] the dead, whether he did so with his bare hands or with an instrument, he is [liable for] lashes; - Since the verse from Deuteronomy also concludes "for the dead," it appears that both gashing and gouging are forbidden essentially as mourning rites. There is, however, an added dimension to the prohibition against gashing; doing so is also forbidden by the Torah, as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: "Do not mutilate yourselves." [The difference between the two is that if one gouges himself in grief over] the dead, whether he did so with his bare hands or with an instrument, he is [liable for] lashes; for the sake of idols,⁶In such an instance if one uses an instrument, one is liable for lashes.⁷Since that is the normal practice, as the verse from Kings continues: "With their swords and lances." If one does so with one's bare hands, one is exempt.⁸Doing so is, nevertheless, forbidden (Tzemach Tzedek).

וּבִכְלַל אַזְהָרָה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ שְׁנֵי בָּתֵּי דִּינִין בְּעִיר אַחַת זֶה נוֹהֵג כְּמִנְהָג זֶה וְזֶה נוֹהֵג כְּמִנְהָג אַחֵר. שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה גּוֹרֵם לְמַחֲלוֹקוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד א) "לֹא תִתְגֹּדְדוּ" לֹא תֵּעָשׂוּ אֲגֻדּוֹת אֲגֻדּוֹת: This commandment also includes [a prohibition]¹In Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 45), the Rambam explains that the interpretation which follows is an allegory, and the simple meaning of the verse is to prohibit gashing oneself in grief. Nevertheless, it is significant that the Rambam includes this "allegory" in a text which is, as he states in his introduction, "halachot, halachot." Thus, he emphasizes how important unity is to the Jewish people.
There is an important halachic dimension to the Rambam's explanation in Sefer HaMitzvot. One of the principles of Torah law is that punishment is never administered for the violation of a לאו שבכללות ("a prohibition which includes within it several different injunctions;" see Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3). If this allegorical interpretation of the mitzvah were considered to be included in the simple meaning of the mitzvah, this principle would also apply regarding this mitzvah, and lashes might not be administered when one gashed oneself in mourning (Kessef Mishneh). against there being two courts which follow different customs in a single city, since this can cause great strife.²This decision has been the subject of much discussion among the Rabbis, because it appears to run contrary to one of the accepted principles of halachah.
The Rabbis concluded that whenever there is a difference in opinion between Abbaye and Ravva, the halachah follows Ravva, with the exception of six specific instances (יעל קגם). In the present case, the Rambam quotes Abbaye's opinion even though Ravva differs, stating that the prohibition applies only when one follows a divergent opinion without the support of a formal Rabbinical court (Yevamot 14a). When, however, there is a Rabbinical court which advocates each of the differing opinions - e.g., the differences of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel - there is no prohibition against following either view until the halachah is determined by the supreme Sanhedrin.
Many authorities have advanced different explanations for the Rambam's decision. The most straightforward is that of the Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1384), who explains that the Rambam favored Abbaye's view because of the emphasis on unity. Furthermore, selecting it over Ravva's in this instance does not represent a break with the accepted tradition, since the difference of opinion here does not center on positions adopted by Abbaye and Ravva independently, but rather on their interpretation of Resh Lakish's statements. [Because of the similarity in the Hebrew roots,]³The Hebrew גדד means both "gash" and "group." the prohibition against gashing ourselves [can be interpreted] to mean: "Do not separate into various different groupings."⁴It must be noted that the Shulchan Aruch does not quote this halachah as law. It would appear that while many of the subsequent Rabbis appreciate the ideal of unity this halachah espouses, they felt that compelling people to conform to a uniform standard would create more strife than would result from the existence of different views.
One of the practical applications of the issues under discussion is the issue of differences between Sephardic and Ashkenazic religious practices (and similarly, the variety of different approaches that exist within these two major groupings). All of the contemporary authorities agree that it is desirable for each group to adhere to its native customs without change. This plurality of halachic perspectives is an expression - and not a negation - of the all-encompassing unity that permeates Torah Judaism. (See Ezrat Cohen, Responsum 103.)

הַקֹּרֵחַ קָרְחָה עַל הַמֵּת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד א) "וְלֹא תָשִׂימוּ קָרְחָה בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם לָמֵת". אֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן שֶׁשָּׂרַט עַל הַמֵּת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא אַחַת. הַקֹּרֵחַ אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ קָרְחוֹת עַל מֵת אֶחָד לוֹקֶה כְּמִנְיַן הַקָּרְחוֹת וְהוּא שֶׁהִתְרוּ בּוֹ עַל כָּל קָרְחָה וְקָרְחָה. אֶחָד הַקֹּרֵחַ בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ בְּסַם אוֹ הִטְבִּיל אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו בְּסַם וְהִנִּיחָם בַּחֲמִשָּׁה מְקוֹמוֹת בְּרֹאשׁוֹ בְּבַת אַחַת הוֹאִיל וְקָרַח חָמֵשׁ קָרְחוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא הַתְרָאָה אַחַת לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ שֶׁהֲרֵי כֻּלָּן בָּאִין כְּאַחַת. וְחַיָּב עַל כָּל הָרֹאשׁ כְּבֵין הָעֵינַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא ה) "לֹא יִקְרְחוּ קָרְחָה בְּרֹאשָׁם". וְכַמָּה שִׁעוּר הַקָּרְחָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה מֵרֹאשׁוֹ כִּגְרִיס פָּנוּי בְּלִי שֵׂעָר: A person who creates a bald spot [on his head] for a dead person¹Even today, we find the colloquialism, "tear out his hair in grief." is [liable for] lashes,²Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 171) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 468) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. It is significant that the Rambam did not list this prohibition together with the previous ones in Sefer HaMitzvot. as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: "Do not make a bald spot between your eyes³Menachot 37b explains that here the intent is not the area which is literally "between the eyes," but rather the center of the head. for a dead person." When either a priest or an Israelite makes a bald spot [on his head] for a dead person, he is [liable for] only a single measure of lashes.⁴Although, as the Rambam quotes below, Leviticus 21:5 states specifically that a priest may not create a bald spot on his head, that verse should not be understood to be a separate commandment, but rather a further elaboration of this prohibition.
In Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 171), the Rambam elaborates on this subject, explaining that since the mitzvah cannot be derived in its entirety from the verse in Deuteronomy, the verse in Leviticus is not considered to be a second mitzvah applying to priests alone, but rather a further definition of that same command.
A person who makes four or five bald spots for a single dead person is [liable for] a measure of lashes equivalent to the number of bald spots he made, provided he received a separate warning for each bald spot.⁵as explained in Halachah 12. If, however, he creates a single bald spot for five individuals, he is [liable for] only a single measure of lashes. In contrast, were he to gouge himself once for each of these individuals he would receive a commensurate number of measures of lashes. There is no difference whether one created the bald spot with his hands⁶pulling his hair out or with a potion.⁷that removes the hair chemically. If a person dipped his fingers into a potion and positioned them in five places on his head at the same time, since he created five bald spots, he is [liable for] five measures of lashes⁸because it is considered as if he performed five different activities. even though only a single warning was given,⁹That warning can be applied to each of the bald spots he created for they were all created at the same time.¹⁰for they were all created at the same time.
One is liable [for creating a bald spot] on any part of the head, [not only] "between the eyes"¹¹as mentioned in the verse from Deuteronomy quoted above. [as is inferred from Leviticus 21:5]: "Do not make a bald spot on your heads."
What¹²Makkot 20b explains that this verse is used to define the scope of the prohibition for everyone, both priests and Israelites. is the measure of a bald spot? An area on one's head the size of a gris¹³Nega'im 6:1 defines a gris as an area which encompasses 36 hairs as they stand naturally on one's head. Contemporary authorities explain that this is approximately the size of an American dime or slightly smaller than an Israeli telephone token. which is free of hair.¹⁴Rabbenu Asher disagrees and maintains that one is liable even if he removes two hairs. Furthermore, even the removal of a single hair is forbidden. (See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 180:9; Gilyon HaMaharsha.)

הַקֹּרֵחַ רֹאשׁוֹ אוֹ הַשּׂוֹרֵט בִּבְשָׂרוֹ עַל בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁנָּפַל וְעַל סְפִינָתוֹ שֶׁנִּטְבְּעָה בַּיָּם פָּטוּר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא עַל הַמֵּת בִּלְבַד אוֹ הַשּׂוֹרֵט לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. הַקֹּרֵחַ קָרְחָה בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהַשּׂוֹרֵט שְׂרִיטָה בִּבְשַׂר חֲבֵרוֹ וְהַכּוֹתֵב כְּתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע בִּבְשָׂרוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהָיָה חֲבֵרוֹ מְסַיֵּעַ. בִּזְמַן שֶּׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן מְזִידִין שְׁנֵיהֶן לוֹקִין. אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד הַמֵּזִיד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם לוֹקֶה וְהַשּׁוֹגֵג פָּטוּר: A person who makes a bald spot on his head or gouges his flesh¹for sources of grief other than a person's death - e.g., because his house falls or because his ship sinks at sea is exempt.²Though it is forbidden to do, punishment is not administered. One is lashed only [if he carries out these acts] for the sake of a deceased person³as mentioned in the Biblical proof-texts or if he gashes his flesh⁴with a utensil for the sake of an idol.⁵as explained in Halachah 13.
[The following laws apply] when a person creates a bald spot on a colleague's head, makes a gash on a colleague's flesh, or tattoos his colleague's flesh while his colleague assists him.⁶As explained above, the person who performs these activities is held liable. In contrast, the person to whom these acts are done is held liable only if he assists in the performance of the deed. If they both intended to violate the prohibition, both receive lashes.⁷Each is held liable as if he performed the prohibition himself in its entirety. If one violated the prohibition inadvertently and the other did so intentionally, the one who performed the act intentionally is [liable for] lashes, and his colleague is exempt.⁸Apparently, he is not required even to bring a sacrifice. The obligation to bring a sacrifice is a sign of Divine mercy, intended to allow a person to gain atonement. Since his colleague is [liable for] lashes for the transgression, he is not given the opportunity to atone for his part in the sin merely through offering a sacrifice.