Page 47 - Tzurba M'Rabanan Volume1

ןנברמ אברוצ ׳א הרז הדובע תוכלה · 45

the poskim cite the words of Rav Chaim Pela- Defining Receiving Benefit From
31
gi who wrote explicitly that there is impurity in Avoda Zara
a church, and these impure forces cling to a per-
34
son’s soul. This is another reason to distance one- The Gemara relates that it is prohibited to sit
self from entering a church, and this reason is also under the shade of an ashera tree (a tree that was
rooted in a rabbinic decree. planted and served as idolatry) due to the prohi-
bition of receiving benefit from avoda zara.
Receiving Benefit From Avoda Zara Tosafot ask how according to this Rabban
35
Up until this point we have discussed three sep- Yochanan Ben Zakai could sit in the shade of the
arate reasons for why it would be prohibited to Beit Hamikdash and teach Torah. After all, just
36
enter a house of idolatry. However according to as (lehavdil) there is a prohibition to receive ben-
all three, the prohibition is rooted in a rabbinic efit from idolatry, there is also a prohibition to re-
decree (even if one might have to endanger one’s ceive benefit from a consecrated item. Tosafot’s
life for this specific rabbinic prohibition). first answer is that regarding the Heichal (the edi-
Another reason discussed by some authori- fice of the Beit Hamikdash), “Heichal letocho asui,”
ties (though many others seem to have ignored literally meaning that the Heichal was made for
this point) is the possible prohibition of receiv- its inner usage. In other words, the shade creat-
ing benefit from avoda zara. Benefitting from ed outside the building is not the main reason for
avoda zara is clearly a Torah violation based on the building, but merely an indirect result, as op-
the pesukim in Devarim (7:6 and 13:18), and posed to the shade of the tree, which is a major
32
would change the nature of the prohibition from function of a tree. Tosafot’s second answer is that
the lower severity discussed until now. “the stringencies of idolatry are different.”
From the Mishna in Avoda Zara 47b it is clear According to the first reason, it seems that
that if avoda zara was placed in the house, the shade outside a house of idolatry is permitted,
house itself becomes meshamshei avoda zara. The as it’s not the main function of the building. But
Rishonim on the sugya explain that if idol wor- the shade inside the building should definitely be
33
shipers placed the avoda zara there in a perma- forbidden, similar to the shade under the ashera
nent fashion, did not nullify it, and practiced rit- tree. Based on this answer, one could deduce that
uals of avoda zara there, there would be a Torah entering a house of idolatry would be a Torah vi-
violation of receiving benefit from this house. olation, similar to sitting under an ashera tree.
If one accepts this approach, it needs to be clar- However, according to the second answer of
ified as to what constitutes benefit that would be Tosafot, it stands to reason that shade of a tree or
prohibited. Would entering the building in order a building is in essence permitted, and is not con-
to look at the architecture or to hear a concert (for sidered benefit. The reason one is prohibited to sit
example, if an external party hired out the venue under an ashera tree then is due to the stringency
and there is no connection to the church itself) be of avoda zara. This implies that it is not the regu-
considered receiving benefit? lar definition of issur hana’a from the Torah, but

31. Chaim B’yad 26
32. See Masechet Avoda Zara 51b and Rambam, Hilchot Avoda Zara 7:2.
33. Ritva ibid. and Ran on the Rif
34. Masechet Avoda Zara 48b
35. Ibid. s.v. lo yeshev
36. Masechet Pesachim 26a

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