If he slaughtered a locust as a sacrifice to it, he is not guilty, unless it be a mode of its worship. One's mind can not accept all this. Can one imagine that the slaughtering of a locust or of a crippled animal is less dignified that casting of feces or compounding of urine? But the text in the Talmud (Abodah Zarah, 50b–51) indicates this: The scholars who maintain that slaughtering of a locust carries no guilt, also maintain that idolatry worship has no offshoots; so is the opinion of the one who maintains that a crippled animal, carries no guilt. But Rab Judah and Rab Nahman on behalf on Rab (Abba Ariha) follow Rabbi Judah and the instructor concerning feces, and so is also the law that anything resembling slaughtering or casting of a substance which is breakable is guilty, even though its mode of worship is not so. Moreover, Rab Judah, in maintaining that an idol who is worshiped with a rod shall not be by breaking it or casting it but by another manner, teaches an innovation, that although its mode of service is with a rod, if he casts it he is guiltless, because its service is not by casting and because its substance does not break up.¹

footnotes: ¹ Maimonides herein decides in harmony with the highest authorities. It is not a question of the act being dignified. On the contrary, the act of slaughtering was a practice in the Court of the Temple, yet, because such species were not to be offered, he is held guiltless. As for the practices mentioned herein by Maimonides, it is a verbatim quotation from Abodah Zarah, 50b 51a, and is of historical and of academic importance, particularly to the student of comparative religions in the ancient times. Neither is there even a trace of exaggeration in the Talmudic portraiture of possibilities and eventualities. Idolatry during the ancient times was so grossly practiced, and the populace and their ignorant and deceiving priests so stupid as some people in modern times are steeped in lewdness, and sunk in the mire of prostitution. C.G.

But if he worshiped it etc. Evidently he omitted herefrom the word 'fear', whereas the text in the Gemara love and fear both are joined. Moreover, we interpret that the text to mean 'love of man and fear of man', not 'love of the idol and fear of the idol'.¹

footnotes: ¹ Evidently, the RABD. did not have the correct text of Maimonides' work, for both "love and fear" are herein plainly stated. As for the meaning of "love and fear", the interpretation of Maimonides is correct. Fear for man would mean duress, and if it be so, Raba's opponent, Abadya, would not pronounce guilt (Sanhedrin, 61a). Of course Maimonides decides as Raba against Abyya. C.G.

One who has an idol made for himself etc. The question I ask is this: Why is he striped, is not the prohibitive precept a general one? Do we not say when one embraces or kisses an idol that he is not striped because the prohibitive precept is a general one, embracing many kinds of worship under the admonition "Nor serve them", even so are all images under one general prohibitive precept? I further question: This very decision about one who embraces and kisses etc. that he is not striped is contradicted by the Tosefta, Makkot, (Ch. 4.5) which includes the one who anoints, cleans, (embraces?) or combs an idol among those who are lashed? The first question may, perhaps, be answered, that the many forms of worship, because no such was excercized within the Court of the Temple, and because they were separated from slaughtering, concerning which it is said: 'He that sacrificeth unto the gods, save unto the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed' (Ex. 22.19), and all of them were included in one general prohibitive precept, saying: 'Nor serve them', is really a general prohibitive precept, whereas the subject of graven images and manner of likeness in idolatry is an individual prohibitive precept. ¹

footnotes: ¹ RABD. answered his own first question. As for the second, the Gemara does not quote the Tosefta; evidently upon it we do not rely. Moreover, RABD. quotes the Tosefta incorrectly, as the word "embrace" does not appear therein. C.G.

It is likewise forbidden to sketch the image of the sun etc. It looks as if he makes a distinction between the image of man and the image of the ministers Above, saying: ministers above, even if their image be flat, neither protruding nor sunk in, are forbidden whereas the image of man if it be not protruding is permitted—something I do not know the why of, nor where he takes it from. If you will say: Because it is discoursed, its image protruding, it is forbidden to be kept in hand, but if it be flat it is permitted, say it till the end: its image sunk in, it may be kept, but if it be flat it is forbidden (Abodah Zarah, 43b)? The end of the argument being that an Israelite is forbidden to make in any way, but if the idolator made it for him, the protruded he is forbidden to keep but the idolator may seal with it for him, and the sunk in he may keep but the idolator is forbidden to seal it for him, and whether it be the image of man or the image of the ministers Above the law is alike to both, and so it is in principle.¹

footnotes: ¹ Maimonides makes no distinction between protruding and flat, or sunk-in images of the ministers Above, as they are never seen protruding; they are not protruding even from the sphere, but appear to-be sunk-in. But the image of man, which is always seen protruding, the prohibitive against making is, therefore, regarding a protruding image only. C.G.