-2

If it is accepted that Avodah Zarah has effectively ceased to exist, as suggested elsewhere on this site, why do we need to follow any of the relevant halachah, that applies to social relationships with non-Jews, use of some of their food and drink, visiting their places of worship, etc? Why do we need to defend ourselves against a threat that is no longer there?

  • What are you talking about? https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/26265/759 https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/34413/759 etc – Double AA Mar 16 '21 at 19:31
  • The theme has come up in previous questions as you can see: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/61379/if-the-sages-removed-the-desire-for-yetzer-hora-of-avodah-zora-what-is-left-in. and https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/61379/if-the-sages-removed-the-desire-for-yetzer-hora-of-avodah-zora-what-is-left-in. If as some claim there is no longer any AZ, why keep any of the laws that existed to protect people from being seduced/tempted by it? – Kleinzahler Mar 16 '21 at 23:37
  • 3
    I don't know what you're talking about. No one claims there is no AZ. Proof: christianity exists. QED. – Double AA Mar 16 '21 at 23:52
  • 2
    This question would be greatly improved if you offered an actual authoritative source that AZ no longer exists, instead of claiming that it says so somewhere on a website. – Jay Mar 17 '21 at 00:56
  • To Jay: Rabbi Reuven Klein’s book, "God versus gods" (Mosaica Press) p.249 (quoting Halbertal 1992:167),”after the Sages banished the idolatrous inclination, idolatry was no longer a viable hypothesis.” He also quotes, TB Yoma 60b, Sanhderin 64a, R. Emden, Hagahos Yaavetz to TB Yoma 69b. On p.252, “R. Yitzchok Hunter (1906-1980)…explains that while the idolatrous inclination existed in Biblical times, by Rabbinic times it had already been eliminated.” R. Yehuda ha-Chassid in Sefer Chassidim, once the idolatrous inclination had been removed, there was no need for prophecy. – Kleinzahler Mar 17 '21 at 11:17
  • I should add in fairness to R. Klein, that he does try and reconcile the Talmudic view of the end of the inclination to idolatry with the historical facts of the continuation of idolatry in Roman times, etc., but IMO not very convincingly. However, my original question is about AZ within the Jewish community. If the Talmudic view is accepted, why do we still need to keep the halachah that is designed to protect us from AZ? It wouldn't be the first time that halachah has fallen away, or been changed. If you don't accept that Jews are no longer tempted by AZ, there is nothing to discuss. – Kleinzahler Mar 17 '21 at 11:45
  • Are you saying AZ doesn't exist or the inclination for it doesn't exist anymore after the Temples? Clearly, when the Talmud was written they still thought these things should be prohibited and they lived after the Temple so... – Double AA Mar 17 '21 at 12:23
  • Not sure why this question is getting such negative attention. The Gemara is clear that the Yetzer Hora for Idolatry was removed. It makes perfect sense to then ask why were some things that were banned pre the removal of the Yetzer Hora, still kept afterwards.If the inclination has gone, it would make sense for Chazal to cancel no longer needed Gezeiros. – Yehuda Mar 17 '21 at 14:09
  • To Double AA: If Jews are no longer subject to the inclination, does it matter whether AZ exists or not? I live in the EU, which is a largely secular society and AZ is a very much a minority interest. Even if you think Christianity is AZ, the risk IMHO is minimal, even for Jews who are not vey observant. No need now to convert to get on professionally, study, or get into a golf club, even the Catholics no longer require it for marriage. Does anyone know how many Jews convert to Christianity, or Hinduism, or become pagans?

    To Yehuda and Alex many thanks for your comments.

    – Kleinzahler Mar 17 '21 at 14:29
  • @Yehuda What things were banned pre? The bans are found in the gemara well after the yetzer was, as you say, removed. – Double AA Mar 17 '21 at 14:57
  • @Kleinzahler I don't know if it matters or not but the fact is it does exist, contra what you've written many times. – Double AA Mar 17 '21 at 14:58

2 Answers2

3

(Note: this answer should not be construed as accepting the premise of the question. It is merely explaining why the conclusion would be rejected even if the premise is correct.)

I’m not sure if the laws you want to abolish are referring to Biblical laws or Rabbinic laws, so let’s address both. Regarding Biblical laws, Maimonides in Guide for the Perplexed 3:34 writes:

From this consideration it also follows that the laws cannot, like medicine, vary according to the different conditions of persons and times; whilst the cure of a person depends on his particular constitution at the particular time, the divine guidance contained in the Law must be certain and general, although it may be effective in some cases and ineffective in others. If the Law depended on the varying conditions of man, it would be imperfect in its totality, each precept being left indefinite. For this reason it would not be right to make the fundamental principles of the Law dependent on a certain time or a certain place; on the contrary, the statutes and the judgments must be definite, unconditional and general, in accordance with the divine words: "As for the congregation, one ordinance shall be for you and for the stranger" (Num. xv. 15); they are intended, as has been stated before, for all persons and for all times.

(Friedlander translation)

Regarding Rabbinic laws, Maimonides in Hilchot Mamrim 2:2-3 writes:

The following rules apply when a court issued a decree, instituted an edict, or established a custom and this practice spread throughout the Jewish people and another court arose and sought to nullify the original order and eliminate the original edict, decree, or custom. The later court does not have this authority unless it surpasses the original court in wisdom and in its number of adherents. If it surpasses the original court in wisdom, but not in the number of adherents, or in the number of adherents, but not in wisdom, it cannot nullify its statements. Even if the rationale for which the original court instituted the decree or the edict is nullified, the later court does not have the authority to negate their statements unless they are greater.

How is it possible that the later court will surpass the original court in number? For every Supreme Sanhedrin consists of 71 judges. The intent is the number of sages in the generation who consent and accept the matter stated by the Supreme Sanhedrin without opposing it.

When does the above apply? With regard to matters that were not forbidden to create a safeguard for the words of the Torah, but rather resemble other Torah laws. A different principle applies, by contrast, with regard to matters which the court sought necessary to issue a decree and create a prohibition as a safeguard. If the prohibition spread throughout the Jewish people, another Supreme Sanhedrin does not have the authority to uproot the decree and grant license even if it was of greater stature than the original court.

(Touger translation, my emphasis)

Alex
  • 49,242
  • 3
  • 120
  • 228
0

According to Rb Yaakov Weinberg, avodah zarah is any value system defined outside of the perimeters of the Torah. The entire world today is mistovev on re-defining value systems.

The GRAPKE
  • 1,973
  • 5
  • 14