Page 125 - Tzurba M'Rabanan Volume1

ןנברמ אברוצ םיוגה תוקוח תוכלה · 123

of idol worship. Rather, it is because Jews have a the Seridei Eish believes (according to his under-
commandment to sanctify Hashem’s name, and standing of the Rambam) that the leniency ap-
in such a case giving one’s life is the greatest act plies only to the rabbinic prohibition of copying
of sanctification. Rav Soloveitchik’s explanation and imitating a non-Jewish custom (that is not
teaches us that real idol worship is only a trans- directly linked to idol worship). This explanation
gression when one has intent to serve another would also resolve all of the difficulties raised
god. If so, within Chukot Ha’akum as well, which above with the Bach.
is based on that theme, one can claim that with-
out intent there is no sin. Chukot Ha’akum in Modern Times
33
The Seridei Eish offers another explanation Contemporary authorities add an additional di-
to the question of the Beit Yosef on the actions of mension to the parameters of Chukot Ha’akum.
Avtolus (which is similar to, but somewhat differ- They argue that not only is it prohibited to im-
ent than that of the Bach) by resolving a contra- itate non-Jewish customs (because of the pos-
diction in the Rambam’s opinion. The Seridei Eish sibility of being lured to follow non-Jewish reli-
claims that in the Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot the gions and cultures) but even imitating heretical
34
Rambam indicates that Chukot Ha’akum consists customs performed by Jews is forbidden. This
of two distinct categories. One category includes expansion of Chukot Ha’akum is based on the
ancient customs that date back many generations Gemara in Chullin 41b. The Mishna mentions a
and are directly linked to idol worship, while the number of locations where animal slaughter is
second category includes any custom or behavior
that imitates that of non-Jews. However, the Serid- prohibited, one of them being a guma, or hole
ei Eish says that this differentiation is not at all ap- dug in the ground of a field. The Mishna explains
parent in the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah. that a guma is a problematic location for slaugh-
In order to make sense of the Rambam’s posi- ter because heretics would slaughter animals
35
tion, the Seridei Eish claims that the two catego- over holes in the ground. Some Rishonim ex-
ries of Chukot Ha’akum actually contain different plained that the custom is based on idol worship,
36
parameters. The Torah-based restriction (d’oray- but other authorities, such as the Torat Chaim,
37
38
ta) applies when the custom has an ancient Melamed Leho’il and Seridei Eish explain
source and is obviously based on some kind of that any custom that is initiated by heretics and
idol worship, while the second category is based viewed as a sign or symbol associated with their
on a rabbinical decree. In the Mishneh Torah, the belief is strictly prohibited. On this basis, the Mel-
Rambam focused primarily on the Torah-based amed Leho’il (Rav David Tzvi Hoffman) and all
restriction (though with the additional rabbin- German rabbinic scholars of the 19 and 20 cen-
th
th
ic leniency concerning karov l’malchut), while in tury profusely rejected the idea of using an organ
his Sefer HaMitzvot he developed the other as- in a synagogue, even on weekdays, as its use in
pect. This hypothesis is similar to the Bach’s con- shul was initiated by the Reform community of
cept of Chukot Ha’akum based on intent, just that the time and became a symbol of the movement,

33. Responsa 2:39
34. Lo Ta’aseh 30
35. See Rambam, Hilchot Shechita 2:5
36. Chullin 41b
37. Responsa 15
38. Ibid.

This volume is not to be distributed. Copies are for the personal use of purchaser only.