- This topic has 15 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Why does the RaMBa”M mention lo silbash in Avodas Kochavim and not in ishus or something more relevant?
Doesn’t he mention it in Deios also where he says a talmid chacham shouldn’t walk in the shuk wearing fragrances?
I think I saw the Rambam say explicitly that the reason for the Issur is that the early Ovdei Avodas Kochavim used to mix the clothing purposely. He gives the same reason for Shaatnez and a host of others. He says that if he had read more Avodas Kochavim books he would know reasons for more Mitzvos.
Why do you think this question is stupid or theoretical?
The Wolf
Korbanos are a whole Parsha for themselves. Also, although he explains that Korbanos is a Kosher alternative for Avoda Zara, it is still not a branch of Avoda Zara. Switching clothing, he holds, is part of the Harchakos of Avoda Zara.
More important, although the Rambam generally refrains from mentioning his reasons from Mora Nevuchim in the Yad, what we do see from there is that he did not see this Issur as a Harchaka to Arayos like Rashi did. To him it is a Chok. In that sense it fits right in with Klai’im.
I agree with The Wolf. It should not be called a stupid, nor theoretical, question.
Wolf: It’s definitely theoretical as opposed to practical.
False dilemma. Theoretical and practical aren’t the only two possibilities.
What theory are you trying to propose?
I would argue that your question is far more informational than theoretical.
The Wolf
It’s not an offshoot of Klaim.
HaLeiVi –
You seem to think that the fact that it is not juxtaposed together with Arayos is proof that the Rambam held this is some kind of chok.
While this is an interesting take on it, it is not possible, as the Gemara in Nazir 59 is ???? that it has do with arayos, as the Gemara darshens that when it is a ????? it is assur and when it isn’t it is not.
I would come at it from another angle, with a similar question:
The issur of ????????? ?? ???? is ostensibly primarily an avodah zarah issue. If so, why is it written in the Torah as a preface to the parsha of arayos?
I don’t have an answer but I think there is something to be said along the lines of a lot of the attraction of avodah zarah has to do with arayos and there is a lot of connection between them.
You say:
You seem to think that the fact that it is not juxtaposed together with Arayos is proof that the Rambam held this is some kind of chok.
But I said:
I think I saw the Rambam say explicitly that the reason for the Issur is that the early Ovdei Avodas Kochavim used to mix the clothing purposely.
What I was referring to is: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9463&st=&pgnum=91
What you ask about Bechukoseihem is actually the Torah’s preface to Arayos all the time — not to follow the actions we’ve witnessed in Mitzraim and Kenaan.
Favor: Most often, I view the CR with my phone and can therefore not read the Hebrew characters. When addressing me, please try to transliterate.
HaLeiVi –
Sorry about the Hebrew.
If you look in the Rambam you mentioned he writes that there a list of things which are to make a break from customs of the idol worshipers, one of them being lo silbash, but then he digresses and says that there is anyway the reason of pritzus. And the Gemara I quoted it clear that l’halacha this is the reason.
About u’vchukoseihem, my question is that if we learn from it halachos that relate to avodah zarah then what is it’s relation to arayos. Whether or not it appears more than once doesn’t address the question.
It is clear that he holds that the main reason is that it was a pagan rite. He only added that he has another reason. The fact that the Gemara mentions Toeva as the confines of the Issur doesn’t necessarily put it in that category. The Rambam happens to say that many pagan rites were made up to satisfy lust, and therefore often contain very undesirable details. This might help put the Hagdara in perspective. The Chinuch mentions the two reasons for the Issur.
Regarding Uvchukoseihem, this is not the only place in the Torah where you will find this concept of a phrase that teaches us a Halacha put somewhere because of its Pshat connotation. We learn Davar Hanikna Miyad Leyad from a Pasuk that’s actually referring to Karka. Over here, the Pasuk says not to follow the nations. This in itself is a Halacha, that is related to Avoda Zara, and it is also put there as a Hakdama to the Parsha of Orayos. It has no practical purpose concerning Arayos.
About u’vchukoseihem, we’re not talking about drashos. The p’shat, according to everyone, is an issur based in an avodah zarah concern.
The fact that the Gemara mentions Toeva as the confines of the Issur doesn’t necessarily put it in that category.
Yes, it does. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to limit the issur. Because the other consideration would still apply.
The Rambam happens to say that many pagan rites were made up to satisfy lust, and therefore often contain very undesirable details.
I implied this in my first post, and I agree.
About u’vchukoseihem, we’re not talking about drashos. The p’shat, according to everyone, is an issur based in an avodah zarah concern.
I’m not speaking Drashos, either. I’m talking about ramifications. It is put there as an introduction to arayos, which were common in the nations with which we had contact. However, the meaning of the words itself are not lost on us, and it means not to follow their customs. If not for Arayos the Torah would say it anyhow but not there. This is very common in the Torah.
Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to limit the issur. Because the other consideration would still apply.
The Torah says, Toeva. That is where Chazal learn it. In fact, perhaps it can be a Raya to the Rambam. If it were simply a Lav to prevent mingling and Arayos we wouldn’t need a Pasuk to tell us that it doesn’t apply to that which doesn’t promote mingling.
I implied this in my first post, and I agree.
I read your complete comment but wrote this too, because of a slight difference. You were saying that they in general they worshipped idols so that they can do as they please — no idol cares about your behaviour towards anyone. I was adding that the rites themselves were very often made of lust.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.