לרשתה כל הימים, "to possess it for all time, etc." Moses simply meant that if the Israelites were to keep G'd's commandments then their tenure in the land would continue for ever.

אבד תאבדון את כל המקמזת, "You shall utterly destroy all the sites, etc." We can understand this verse in conjunction with the Mishnah 7 chapter 3 in tractate Avodah Zarah. We are taught there: "there are three categories of houses; 1) a house which was constructed in order to serve as a place of worship. Such a house is (totally) forbidden. 2) A house which originally was not used or intended for such worship but has been redecorated in order to serve as a house of worship. 3) The Gentile made an addition to the existing house which was intended and used as a residence. In the latter two instances the Jew has to demolish all the new decorations or additions and he may have use of the rest of such a house." The Talmud elaborates on this Mishnah saying that if someone prostrates himself in front of any house (indicating he worships it) he has thereby made it completely forbidden to every Jew. From this we deduce that even if someone had only joined together individual stones and attached them to the ground they are still considered as if they were separate and the house is not forbidden until it was used for the purpose for which it has been designated! The Talmud queries why this should be so seeing the Mishnah had forbidden such a house even if the entire house had been built for an idolatrous purpose before anyone had prostrated himself! The Talmud answers that the Mishnah taught us the law that even if the house had only been built for a purpose for which it had not yet been used it is already totally forbidden. Thus far the Talmud on the subject. Maimonides accepts this ruling in his treatise Hilchot Avodah Zarah chapter 8. This ruling is reflected in what our verse says: "all the sites where the Canaanites used to serve idols." The meaning is that it is irrelevant if the place had originally been built for the purpose or not. If idolatrous practices had been performed there the Israelites must destroy it even if only an addition to such a house had been used for idolatry.

אשר אתם יורשים אתם, "which you are about to inherit." These words are best understood by reference to Hilchot Avodah Zarah 7,1 by Maimonides. He writes: "in the land of Israel it is one of the positive commandments to pursue (seek out) all places where idolatry is practiced until we have succeeded in eliminating it, whereas in the diaspora or in the countries adjacent to the land of Israel we need to destroy such places only as and when we come across them." Maimonides quotes our verse as proof that only in the land of Israel must we seek out such places. The operative clause is clearly: "which you are about to inherit." Once something is ours, the law applies universally.

The reason Moses repeats the word אבד may be understood in conjunction with the statement in Avodah Zarah 43 that in order to cancel or revoke the idolatrous character of an object two conditions have to be met. The object has to be ground into small pieces and scattered into the wind or into the sea. If only one of these conditions has been met, one did not fulfil one's obligation. This is alluded to when Moses said the word אבד twice.

את אלוהיהם על ההרים, "their gods on the mountains, etc." Seeing that Moses had said that the various places we mentioned are all forbidden because they have served as places where idolatry has been practiced, Moses had to tell the people that there are sites where idolatry was practiced which have not thereby become subject to destruction. One such example are the mountains. In Avodah Zarah 45 the sages read the words אלוהיהם על ההרים, as a contrast to ההרים אלוהיהם. This means that legally speaking the mountains cannot be declared as deities. If the idolators declare a certain mountain as a deity such a declaration is invalid and does not affect the status of such a mountain in Jewish law. [One reason advanced for this concept is that mountains are an integral part of the universe, cannot be owned by individuals. We have a rule that an individual cannot legally preclude another from using something which does not personally belong to the person who wishes to deny its use to another. Ed.] In Avodah Zarah 51 the Talmud determines that when a certain verse appears superfluous in its own context it may be applied exegetically to another context. If, for instance, the verse was not needed in connection with the subject of what is ritually impure as a result of buildings connected to the ground which hve been used for idolatry, it may be used in connection with whether certain vessels are ritually impure or not if they have been used for idolatrous purposes. The underlying concept there is that we do not need a special verse to tell us that if something was a separate body and was attached to some building which served idolatrous purpose that it becomes ritually impure and cannot be purified.

We may also understand the words את אלוהיהם by paying attention to its peculiar position in the verse. It is placed between mention of the worshipers and mention of the objects worshiped. The normal syntax of the verse should have been: עבדו שם הגוים את אלוהיהם אשר אתם יורשים אתם, "where the Gentiles worshiped their deities… which you are about to inherit." The reason the Torah departed from its normal syntax may be understood in light of Avodah Zarah 44 where Rav Hunna poses a question about two contradictory verses in Scripture. We read in Chronicles I 14,12 that David burned the idols the Philistines left behind. In Samuel II 5,21 David and his men are reported to have "carried these idols." The Talmud answers that there is no contradiction. In the description in Samuel the prophet refers to what David did after the arrival of Ittai Hagitti, whereas in the description in Chronicles Ezra reported about what was done before the arrival of Ittai Hagitti. [a loyal non-Jewish battalion commander of David, compare Samuel II 15,19-22. Ed.] We are told in Samuel II 12,30 that David took the crown of the king of the Ammonites (after Yoav defeated him) and put it on his own head. How could he do this seeing it had served idolatrous purposes? Rav Nachman answered that Ittai Hagitti had first annulled whatever idolatrous character the crown possessed. From this episode it appears that it is possible even to inherit (make use of) the idol itself! This is possible only when the former adherents of such an idol have themselves deprived it of their original function. Only in such cases may the Israelites subsequently derive benefit from erstwhile idols. This is what Moses had in mind when he wrote אשר יורשים אתם את אלוהיהם, "whom you inherit when their idols are present." Moses alluded to a situation similar to that when Ittai Hagitti annulled the idol's significance as an idol.

A moral/ethical approach to our verse sees in it a promise that even the unseen, mystical power of the idolatrous images, will be totally destroyed when the Israelites make every effort to destroy every visible evidence of idolatry in the land of Israel. This is why the Torah emphasises כל המקומות אשר עבדו שם, "all the places where they worshiped." This is a reference to the throne of Satan. Israel's effort will be crowned by success and G'd will become enthroned as the sole ruler over the entire globe.

ואבדתם את שמם, "and you will destroy their name, etc." The question is asked in Avodah Zarah 45 what these words can possibly add when we have already been told to utterly destroy every place where idolatry had been performed? The sages answer that even the roots of the trees which were symbols of idolatry have to be uprooted. Rabbi Akiva says that the names of such sites have to changed to something degrading. Thus far the Talmud. Perhaps the Torah wanted to issue a special warning applicable only to the land of Israel, similar to what Maimonides wrote that in the Holy Land we have to seek out such places and destroy them, whereas in other countries we are not obliged to do this. This is why Moses emphasises the words מן המקום ההוא, "from that place."

לא חעשון כן לה׳ אלוקיכם, "Do not do so to the Lord your G'd!" Our sages in the Sifri on our verse understand this as a reference to the prohibition of erasing the holy name of G'd, or even part of it. They read together the words ואבדתם את שמם לא תעשו כן. Perhaps the wording of our verse is intended to draw attention to two separate halachot concerning erasing any part of G'd's name. We have a law about erasing the name of G'd itself, and there is a law about erasing suffixes appended behind the name of G'd. When the Torah says לשם, it refers to any of the various names of G'd and not merely the Tetragram. When the Torah adds the word אלוקיכם, it alludes to the suffix כם. Maimonides writes in chapter six of his treatise Yesodey Hatorah that the penalty of 39 lashes applies only to someone who actually erased letters of G'd's name, as the Torah is not outspoken about the suffixes. The Sifri also concludes from this verse that removing a single stone from the courtyard of the Temple is a violation of a negative commandment as it says in our verse: לא תעשון", "you must not do." It appears to me that this law is not limited to removal of a whole stone but to the removal of any quantity of stone which leaves a visible void.

אשר יבחר באחד שבטיך, "which He will choose amongst one of your tribes, etc." Moses counters the argument of those who want to belittle the idea that G'd's residence should be limited to the territory of a single tribe and who would therefore assign additional sites for the offering of sacrifices. The Torah says that this is out of the question.

כי ירחיב…את גבולך, "When G'd expands your borders etc." Seeing G'd had objected to the excessive craving for a meat-diet displayed by the Israelites in Numbers chapter 11 where we were told about thousands dying on that account, such a craving had been taboo ever since. Only meat which had first been hallowed as a sacrifice had been permitted to be eaten by the average Israelite during the last 38 years. At this point Moses justifies the new legislation which sanctions the desire to have a meat-diet by referring to the difficulty of making the meat first a sacrifice and having to travel to Jerusalem to do so. It is assumed that the craving will re-surface as a result of most people living a long way from Jerusalem. G'd specifically sanctions the desire to eat meat with the words: "you may eat meat in accordance with all the desire of your soul."

כי ירחק ממך המקום, When the place will be too far from you, etc." The words: "you may eat within your gates" mean that such meat does not have to be sacrificial meat. Our sages differ as to the precise meaning of the word "distant" in our verse (compare Pessachim 93). The Talmud there speaks of the verse in Numbers 9,10 and determines that anyone living as far from Jerusalem as Modin falls under this category. Other opinions hold that even living inside the city of Jerusalem but outside the courtyard of the Hoy Temple is already considered as "distant." We can only wish that the time will soon arrive when this halachah will assume practical significance, i.e. after the arrival of the משיח.

שמר ושמעת את כל הדברים האלה, "Observe and hearken to all these words, etc." The sequence of the words "observe and hearken" appears to be reversed. The Torah should have written "hearken and observe." Besides, what are the words את and כל meant to include? Furthermore, why is this the only verse in which Moses speaks about the wellbeing of the children due to their parents' observance of the commandments? What is the meaning of the words כי תעשה הטוב which appears to be the result underlying the commandment "so that you and your children will be well off?" Moses had already given the reason for this when he said: "observe, etc." He had added למען, i.e. "in order that as a result of this observance, etc." Clearly the wellbeing was decribed as a result of מצוה-observance.

I believe that Moses gives two separate instructions here. 1) To observe and to listen to the Torah and the various commandments, i.e. the ones with which the Israelites were already familiar; 2) the various decrees our rabbis have formulated throughout our history known as "fences." Concerning the Torah and the commandments written therein Moses said שמר, "observe," seeing these were already known; concerning the rabbinic decrees which were not yet known he said ושמעת, "be sure to hearken." Moses said את כל to warn the people to be sure that they include all the various decrees and ordinances that would be enacted by the Rabbis in the future. He said the words כל הדברים, "the whole words," to remind us that unless one fulfils both the biblical and the rabbinic part of the commandments one has not truly fulfilled them. Moses concludes this thought with the words למען ייטב לך ולבניך to remind us that it is the performance of all these rabbinic decrees which will enable the Jewish people to raise Torah-true generations of children and grandchildren. This is what would separate us from the people who indulge in a way of life that is abhorrent to G'd.

כי תעשה הטוב, "so that you will do what is good, etc." Moses explains that the purpose of rabbinic decrees and ordinances is designed only to enable you to do what is good and correct in the eyes of the Lord. Accordingly, this part of the verse is also part of the reason why Moses commands us to "observe and hearken." The good which G'd has in mind for us will be the result of our relating with equal seriousness to rabbinic decrees as we relate to biblical injunctions. All of this is additional to the good that will devolve on future generations as a result of the interpretations of Torah left to us by the scholars. The words כי תעשה are an addition to the words שמר ושמעת.

Our verse may also remind a person who is in the habit of fulfilling a particular commandment and is fully aware of what it entails not to say that he does not need to study this commandment. Moses tells us that study even of commandments which we fulfil as a matter of routine is a separate מצוה, and is not to be neglected.

Still another way of understanding the order in which Moses phrases this exhortation is that it is a reference to Hoseah 14,3: ונשלמה פרים שפתינו, "let our lips substitute for the bullocks." Our sages have taught us that when it is physically impossible to observe certain commandments, the way to make up for it is to study these commandments. The classic example is the entire animal-sacrifice legislation which the Jewish people have been unable to fulfil ever since the destruction of the Holy Temple. Just as it is impossible to keep all the "words," Moses contents himself with asking for an effort, i.e. שמר. He uses the word ושמעת as the parallel for the positive commandments. These too are impossible for one individual to perform totally. Moses suggests that studying positive commandments will compensate for the ones a person cannot fulfil physically. In view of the aforesaid it is not possible to observe all the commandments satisfactorily.

Moses may also have paraphrased something we have been taught in Avodah Zarah 19 that one should first read (commit to memory) the text before explaining it, i.e. trying to understand it. [In my edition of the Talmud the quotation is slightly different. The wording is: לעולם יגריס איניש ואף על גב דלא ידע ואף על גב דמשכת Ed.] This is what Moses had in mind that one should observe the commandments even before one has understood them. He implies that faithful performance will ensure that one remembers the commandment which will lead to ושמעת, that you will study and understand its meaning.

Moses may also have phrased this verse to reflect a statement in the Zohar volume three page 193 that the sins a person has committed act as a lock, precluding him from unraveling the secrets of the Torah. You find a similar comment in the Shulchan Aruch of the Ari zal in the section on Torah study. He wrote that the gates of understanding to the words of Torah are the questions which trouble normal human beings. This is the mystical dimension of the קליפות, the spiritually negative forces which have beeen created by man's own sins. Moses tells us that if you truly wish to understand that there are answers to these questions which trouble you in your faith you must first שמר, observe the commandments whose meaning bothers you and subsequently ושמעת, you will be able to understand the answer to the question which previously troubled you.

The verse may also be understood in light of what we learned in Chagiga 15 that "if the Rabbi appears to be of the stature of an angel one should request to hear words of Torah from his lips." Thus far the Talmud. Moses simply says that if the teacher is truly Torah-observant, שמר, you should listen to what he has to teach, ושמעת. When Moses added the words: את כל הדברים, this may be understood in light of the question directed against Rabbi Meir on that same folio in the Talmud how he could learn Torah from an heretic such as Elisha ben Avuyah? The question is reinforced by a quotation from Maleachi 2,7: "for the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and men seek rulings from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts." Surely Elisha ben Avuyah did not fit the prophet's description of who should dispense Torah knowledge? The Talmud answers that Rabbi Meir had also based himself on Scripture as it is written in Proverbs 22,17: "incline your ear and listen to the words of the wise, and your heart to My wisdom." Solomon does not say that one should listen to "their wisdom," i.e. the teacher's wisdom, but he said לדעתי, "to My wisdom," i.e. to G'd's wisdom. This appears to leave us with two contradictory verses from Scripture! The Talmud resolves this problem by saying one verse refers to what ordinary people should do whereas the verse in Proverbs refers to what eminent scholars may do. Rabbi Meir was eminent enough to be able to distinguish which of Elisha's words reflected genuine Torah outlook, something most ordinary people are unable to do. The Talmud there raises another problem. Rava explained the verse in Song of Songs 6,11: "I descended to the nut garden to have a look at the green plants of the vale." He asked: "why are the Torah scholars compared to a walnut? Answer: Just as the walnut is dirty on the outside without its interior becoming defiled by this, so the Torah scholar. Even though he may have sinned, his Torah has not become discredited." Rabbah bar Shiloh encountered the prophet Elijah. He asked him what G'd was currently preoccupied with? Elijah replied that G'd was telling the angels about the teachings of all the Torah scholars except that of Rabbi Meir The reason He did not quote Rabbi Meir was because the latter had quoted what he had learned from the heretic Elisha ben Avuyah. Rabbah bar Shilo wanted to know what Rabbi Meir had been guilty of that he was so discriminated against in heaven? He added that Rabbi Meir had found a pomegranate and eaten it while discarding its outer shell. [a hyperbole for not being infected with the harmful part of the source. Ed.] Thereupon Elijah answered that as of that moment G'd also quoted the sayings of Rabbi Meir. In fact G'd prefaced Rabbi Meir's sayings by referring to him as "My son Meir." Thus far the Talmud. According to our sages then an eminent scholar may listen to words of Torah even from the lips of an heretic. Maimonides does not accept this and rules in Hilchot Talmud Torah chapter 4 that unless the teacher is comparable in personal belief and conduct to an angel of the Lord one should not learn Torah from him.

According to the opinion of the Shach on Yore Deyah 246,8 only Rabbi Meir makes the distinction between who may study from the lips of a scholar who is a heretic and who may not. The concensus of the scholars in the Talmud is that we do not make such a distinction. He deduces this from the fact that the Talmud quoted Rabbi Meir as defending his attitude based on a verse from Scripture in Proverbs.

I do not agree with the words of the Shach. First of all we have no evidence in the Talmud that what Rabbi Meir did was subject to disagreement by the scholars in the Talmud. We accept the existence of controversies between the scholars only when there is no other way to reconcile what appear to be conflicting opinions. [the author means that it is an accepted principle not to invent a disagreement between scholars unless the evidence of such a disagreement is incontrovertible. Ed.] Secondly, the fact that the Talmud quoted the verse from Maleachi querying Rabbi Meir's conduct indicates that this very verse formed the basis of a general concensus, i.e. that one does not learn from the lips of an heretic, and that obviously Rabbi Meir agreed with this. Had the Talmud thought that Rabbi Meir did not accept the interpretation of the verse in Maleachi it should simply have said that Rabbi Meir disagreed. The question was only why Rabbi Meir ignored that verse and the concensus? If you were to argue that this is precisely what the scholar had in mind who said that Rabbi Meir based his conduct on the verse in Proverbs, i.e. that he did not accept the interpretation of the verse in Maleachi by the other scholars, why did he phrase it by saying that the verses appear to contradict themselves? Besides, Rava, who was a scholar of a later generation, quoted the verse from Song of Songs in defense of Rabbi Meir. We decide the halachah in accordance with more recent scholars, i.e. although the opinion of Rabbi Meir as to whether exceptions are allowed such as when the student is himself an eminent scholar is subject to dispute, the general principle that one does not learn from an heretic is accepted based on the verse in Maleachi, a principle which Rabbi Meir agrees with. What greater proof could there be that Rabbi Meir was not out of line than that G'd Himself quoted halachic sayings of Rabbi Meir after Rabbi Shiloh's conversation with the prophet Elijah? Let us assume for the moment that the principle espoused in Maleachi applies regardless of whether the student is himself an eminent scholar or not, and that only Rabbi Meir disagreed as to the exception for such scholars. Why did Rabbi Shiloh answer the prophet Elijah that Rabbi Meir found a pomegranate, ate its interior and discarded its shell? Clearly, he must have thought that in general Rabbi Meir shared the view of the other scholars otherwise what kind of a defence was this? After all this you may ask what did G'd think before He heard Rabbi Shilo's defence of Rabbi Meir and what did He think afterwards? Surely G'd did not need Rabbi Shiloh to enlighten Him! Did He not know what Rabbi Meir thought all along without the help of Rabbi Shiloh? Remember that G'd is concerned that man's actions be not only above board in His eyes but that they be approved and seen as meritorious in the eyes of his peers. Otherwise even halachically correct conduct may be accounted sinful in the eyes of G'd. When Rabbi Meir had studied from the mouth of Elisha ben Avuyah he had been guilt-free in the eyes of G'd but had not proven that his conduct was beyond reproach in the eyes of his peers. Now that Rabbi Shiloh had challenged Elijah it had become clear to G'd that Rabbi Meir's conduct was approved even by his peers. This is why G'd could begin to quote Rabbi Meir's Torah at this juncture. From all this it follows that Rabbi Meir's reasoning concerning the whole subject was correct.

This brings us to the ruling of Maimonides [and the Shulchan Aruch Ed.] in which the distinction made in the Talmud as to who may or may not learn from an heretic is totally ignored. Maimonides simply felt that in his generation there were no people of stature such as Rabbi Meir so that one could proclaim that if they studied Torah from the mouths of heretics this posed no danger to their continued intellectual and spiritual integrity. Perhaps Maimonides understood all the emphasis in the discourse on the subject in the Talmud on the person of Rabbi Meir as singling him out as an exception. This is why he ignored the concensus in the Talmud and applied the principle from Shabbat 112 that "if earlier generations could be compared to angels our generations are like ordinary mortals, whereas if even earlier generations were only ordinary mortals then we are comparable to donkeys." In view of this consideration, Maimonides did not feel he had to even mention the exception to the rule that one's Torah teacher must be like an angel of G'd in piety, etc., in order for us to accept what he is teaching.

In light of the foregoing we can understand the meaning of Moses saying שמר ושמעת, "be careful when you listen," in that order. He said: "under what circumstances do I tell you to be careful before you listen? Only if you are a relative ignoramus and might easily be misled by what the Torah scholar turned heretic has to say. In such an event you must only listen to teachers whose personal Torah-true conduct is above reproach. However, if you yourself happen to be an outstanding scholar and you therefore need to listen only to a very small part of what such a scholar turned heretic has to say [seeing you know most of it Ed.], you may go ahead and listen to discourses by such people just as Rabbi Meir did when he learned some Torah from Elisha ben Avuyah. You may do so because you are intelligent enough to discard what is worthless."

כי יכרית…את הגוים…השמר לך, "When G'd will cut down…the nations,….be careful, etc." Why did Moses appear to make being on guard against the lure of idolatry dependent on His cutting down the nations occupying Canaan? Were the Israelites to tolerate with equanimity the idolatry of many nations for many years as long as G'd had not cut down these nations? We know that this is not so as we have been told to wipe out idolatry and to refrain from it ourselves without a word about modifying this commandment by stating that it applied only if our neighbours practiced idolatry! Furthermore, why does the Torah write פן תנקש, "lest you be ensnared..after He has wiped them out?" Surely the sequence of events should have been the reverse? Why would the Israelites be in danger of being ensnared by idolatry performed by people whom G'd has already wiped out? Their very fate has discredited their deities who could not save them! Rashi's comment that after G'd has wiped out these nations we are to reflect about the sins which caused them to be wiped out and to be careful not to commit a similar sin so that we would not meet the same fate, does not really solve our problem. Thirdly, the Torah writes both פן תנקש and פן תדרש. In view of the fact that the "ensnaring," תנקש leads to your enquiring into the idolatrous practices, the Torah should have written פן תנקש לדרוש, "so that you will not be ensnared into enquiring, etc," instead of describing these two phenomena as independent of one another! Fourthly, why did Moses write לאמור? To whom did he expect the Israelites to say this? Fifthly, why did Moses use the word איכה as introducing a question? We do not find this word as having this meaning anywhere else! Sixthly, what did Moses mean (13,1) by forbidding both לא תגרעו, "do not subtract from the laws of the Torah" as well as לא תוסיפו "do not add to them?" Whereas we can understand the former, does not the latter exclude the enactment of rabbinic ordinances? Did not the Torah itself write (Leviticus 18,30) "You shall make fences around My commandments," i.e. that the prohibition of idolatry is to be surrounded with rabbinic decrees to ensure we do not violate the essence of the commandment? Is this not an invitation to make additional laws to keep us from becoming ensnared in the sin of idol worship?

Actually, Moses intended to warn against the errors man is apt to make when he observes with his own eyes that wicked people are being destroyed. He is almost bound to arrive at either one of two possible (erroneous) conclusions when he is an eye witness to such a phenomenon. He may conclude that the idolatry these people had practiced was considered substantive and this is the reason why G'd was so concerned with their worshiping something other than Him that He decided to kill them. Alternatively, anyone witnessing the demise of such idol worshipers will conclude that the form of worship these people had indulged in is not substantive and would not arouse G'd's jealousy. An example would be if someone threw something in the direction of Markulies, or excreted before Pe-or, etc., which is a form of worship not applicable to the respective deity. It is a fact that we do not perform any such acts of worship to the Lord our G'd. Why then did G'd kill those nations? We would conclude that it was not for worshiping idols but for failing to worship G'd instead in the appropriate fashion. Not only that, but these people also failed to observe the various commandments G'd has revealed.

Indulging in speculations about the why of these peoples' demise is a waste of time which ought to have been devoted to Torah study instead. If the person who watched the demise of the pagans arrived at the conclusion that the form of worship these pagans indulged in was appropriate but that they addressed it to the wrong address, i.e. to an idol, he may conclude that the proper thing for him to do is to serve our G'd in that fashion. If, on the other hand, the witness of the demise of the pagans concluded that the reason G'd killed them was because their form of worship was too inconsequential, he may believe that if he himself were to do the same it would not have any negative consequences for him as he was not a pagan but believed in G'd and served G'd. After all, G'd had killed these people only because they did not serve Him! The Torah therefore warns: כי יכרית, "when G'd cuts down," etc., and you witness this, השמר לך, "be on guard" not to arrive at either one of the conclusions we have just described. Concerning the first conclusion that the service performed by these people was substantive and aroused G'd's jealousy, the Torah writes פן תנקש אחריהם, "do not be ensnared to follow after them, i.e. as Rashi wrote "do not commit the same stupid mistake as they did when they engaged in this form of worship but remember I have already killed these people as a sign that I abhor such practices." Concerning the second faulty conclusion by the witness of the destruction of these pagans, i.e. that their form of worship was inappropriate in the first place and that something of that nature does not come under the heading of idol worship at all, and that therefore it would not bother G'd, the Torah writes ופן תדרש לאלוהיהם, "and do not speculate about what constitutes proper idol worship by concluding that the nature of the obeisance determines what is true idolatry. This is what is meant by איכה יעבדו הגוים, "in what manner the pagans perform their idolatrous practices." The word איכה is not a question as we thought at first; it is part of a statement expressing amazement by the onlooker who could not fathom that something so undignified could possibly be classified as worship. Moses continues ואעשה כן גם אני, "and I shall do likeweise," to show what such faulty reasoning can lead to when a Jew wishes to express his disdain for an idol by excreting before it, for instance. The Torah warns not to do something of that nature.

Moses continues (verse 31) לא תעשה כן להשם אלוקיך, "do not do so to the Lord your G'd, etc." concerning the first error we mentioned, i.e. to indulge in the substantive kind of worship the pagans engaged in, but in order to honour our G'd with such practices. The Torah tells us that we are wrong to assume that their form of worship was acceptable but not the address, by writing "for everything these people have done is an abomination which G'd hates." G'd's jealousy was not aroused by the fact that an aesthetically superior form of worship was lavished on idols instead of on Him, but even the form of their worship is an abomination in His eyes. In order to illustrate that these people had no idea of what constitutes an acceptable form of worship in G'd's eyes it suffices to remind the Israelites that they indulged in sacrificing their own children to such so-called gods. Concerning the second erroneous conclusion, that these forms of worship were of no consequence per se, the Torah explains that the form of worship is hateful to G'd, that "G'd hates everything these people did for their deities." G'd does not need to explain to us why a certain kind of activity is considered an abomination in His eyes. G'd did not explain to us why it is forbidden to marry two sisters while both are alive, although the principle of marrying both sisters itself is not taboo. Similarly, G'd does not owe us an accounting why He considers that something which may appear harmless and of no consequence in our eyes is hateful in His eyes.

In 13,1, the last verse in this passage, Moses continues: את כל הדבר, "the entire word," thus justifying both the commandment not "to subtract" nor "to add" to the commandment but to observe it precisely as written. The expression "do not add" concerns not adding pagan practices when we serve our G'd for whatever aesthetic reasons we think up. The words "do not subtract from it" refer to excluding the inconsequential forms of worship of the pagans from what is forbidden to us. Everything is part of the overall prohibition of idolatry and all that is connected to it.