Throwing a stone at Markolis and Islam

[edu]

To Quote from http://templemountcenter.com/Rambam7Commandments.htm

4: A Gentile who worshipped other gods is punishable [i.e. deserves punishment], and this is if he worshipped it in its way.

[There are general modes of worship, such as prayer, declaration of faith, bowing down, animal sacrifice, etc. which are applicable to any kind of "other god", and there are specific modes of worship associated with specific cults. For instance the worship of Markolis included the throwing of stones into a pile. This was not part of the worship of Ba'al. Someone who throws a stone in worship of Markolis is guilty, whereas someone who throws a stone in worhip of Ba'al is not.]
And every strange worship which the Beit Din (Rabbinical Court) of the Jews gives a death sentence [to Jews] for, a Gentile is executed if he did it. And every strange worship which the Beit Din does not execute [Jews] for it, a Gentile is not executed if he did it. But even if he wouldn't be executed for it, it is all still forbidden. And we don't allow him to raise a pillar [as a focal point for worship], nor to plant a sacred grove and not to make images, nor similar things.

Ibn Ezra to Daniel 11:30 states that the Arabs at Mecca also had a stone throwing  Markolis worship ceremony and did not agree to accept the authority of the leader of Islam until he swore to them that he would allow them to continue their stone throwing ceremony.
It needs further discussion, what would be the status of a Gentile who claims to be a monotheist, but nevertheless continues a Markolis stone throwing ceremony of a pagan religion.

[muman613]

This is all theoretical because at this time we have no Sanhedrin and the Ishmaelites control the Temple Mount. We are not permitted to pray there... Until the time when we have sovereignty what is the purpose of hypothesizing whether this constitutes avodah zarah. We are the weak ones now, for whatever reason, and until Jews grow one we will not be able to spread the Torah laws into this world.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

This is all theoretical because at this time we have no Sanhedrin and the Ishmaelites control the Temple Mount. We are not permitted to pray there... Until the time when we have sovereignty what is the purpose of hypothesizing whether this constitutes avodah zarah. We are the weak ones now, for whatever reason, and until Jews grow one we will not be able to spread the Torah laws into this world.

 
    . It is important discussion and we are not the "weak ones". If that is the case why even bother talking about removing the Arabs from Israel? Why even bother with anything?

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

 Markolis worship ceremony

[muman613]

    . It is important discussion and we are not the "weak ones". If that is the case why even bother talking about removing the Arabs from Israel? Why even bother with anything?

It just seems ironic to talk about removing and executing the idol worshipers when a Jew cannot even daven at the Temple Mount without being arrested. Sounds like 'day-dreaming' to me...

I am just tired of seeing the degradation of the Jewish people in the holy land. And to talk about enforcing the Torah laws today seems like a pipe dream.. The perverts just held a major gay rally in Jerusalem and 3 people were arrested for protesting against it... This is the Jewish state? It is a chillul Hashem.

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

I'm totally confused about this whole post... Is Markolis Roman mercury worship? What are they doing, throwing stones at their idol???  So confused!

[muman613]

I'm totally confused about this whole post... Is Markolis Roman mercury worship? What are they doing, throwing stones at their idol???  So confused!

The point of Edus post is to point out a Jewish law that an idol must not be 'worshipped' in the manner which it required to be worshipped. Each of the idols required a different mode of worship, some required bowing, some required defecation (Ba'al for example), and Markolis required throwing stones...

[muman613]

http://steinsaltz.org/learning.php?pg=Daf_Yomi&articleId=2248

Zevahim 106a-b - Sacrificing to Mercury
February 24, 2011
 
Regarding idol worship, there are certain activities that are considered to be objectively an act of worship and will be forbidden, while other activities may be specific and limited to a certain type of idol. Generally speaking, a person will be held liable for avodah zarah - the prohibition against idol worship - when he performs any one of a number of acts of worship. These activities include commonly used methods of veneration including sacrificing or burning incense, offering a libation or bowing down, and even simply saying "you are my god." Other types of obsequiousness, such as hugging and kissing the idol, washing or cleaning it and so on would be forbidden, but would not serve as true idol worship.

There are other modes of worship that ordinarily would not constitute an act of avodah zarah, except with a specific idol or deity for which that act is a unique form of worship. Thus ha-po'er atzmo le-ba'al pe'or - someone who relieves himself in front of the idol Pe'or - or ha-zorek even le-markolis- someone who throws a stone to the idol Markolis - will also be held liable for performing an act of avodah zarah, since this is the unique method of worshiping these idols. The Gemara on today's daf (=page) brings the opinion of Rabbi Elazar who derives from a passage in Sefer Vayikra (17:7) that sacrificing to Markolis is also considered to be avodah zarah, even though that is not the normal method of worshiping that idol.

Markolis is the name given by the Sages for the Roman god Mercurius, who was also known as the Greek deity, Hermes. Among his many responsibilities, Mercurius was the patron of the highways and travelers. This position led many to erect statues of him on crossroads. Oftentimes, these representations presented just the head of the idol and passersby would place stones at the foot of the statue. On occasion the representation was simply a pile of rocks, and travelers who passed by the pile would toss their own stone on it as an offering to the god.

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

It just seems ironic to talk about removing and executing the idol worshipers when a Jew cannot even daven at the Temple Mount without being arrested. Sounds like 'day-dreaming' to me...

I am just tired of seeing the degradation of the Jewish people in the holy land. And to talk about enforcing the Torah laws today seems like a pipe dream.. The perverts just held a major gay rally in Jerusalem and 3 people were arrested for protesting against it... This is the Jewish state? It is a chillul Hashem.

I hate say it, but I think immoral behavior has gone too far. And we're all going to have to pay for it. We are going to see darkness, before we see light. Imo.

[muman613]

I am feeling a major challenge of my Emunah this week with the news of the 104 terrorists being released. I am sorry if I am not my normal, cheerful self recently...

[muman613]

But it is interesting that Edu posted this today, as we are reading on this coming Shabbat (Parsha Re'eh) where we are given the commandment to destroy the idols of the nations.

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?aid=36235&p=complete

Devarim - Re'eh
Chapter 12

1. These are the statutes and ordinances that you shall keep to perform in the land which the Lord God of your fathers gives you to possess all the days that you live on the earth.
2. You shall utterly destroy from all the places where the nations, that you shall possess, worshipped their gods, upon the lofty mountains and upon the hills, and under every lush tree.
3. And you shall tear down their altars, smash their monuments, burn their asherim with fire, cut down the graven images of their gods, and destroy their name from that place.
4. You shall not do so to the Lord, your God.

[muman613]

Devarim - Re'eh
Chapter 12

29. When the Lord, your God cuts off the nations to which you will come to drive them out from before you, and when you drive them out and dwell in their land,
30. beware, lest you be attracted after them, after they are exterminated from before you; and lest you inquire about their gods, saying, "How did these nations serve their gods? And I will do likewise."
31. You shall not do so to the Lord, your God; for every abomination to the Lord which He hates, they did to their gods, for also their sons and their daughters they would burn in fire to their gods.

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

But, those of us that put our faith in "the creator of the universe" and don't worship graven images, shall be safe. Maybe only your soul...

[edu]

Quote from Muman613

This is all theoretical because at this time we have no Sanhedrin and the Ishmaelites control the Temple Mount. We are not permitted to pray there... Until the time when we have sovereignty what is the purpose of hypothesizing whether this constitutes avodah zarah.

I will mention some practical outcomes even in our times of this discussion.
But first an introduction.
The Chazon Ish to Shviit #24, says that the Yishmaelites have the status similar to other wicked Gentiles except for one issue. Namely, if they touch Jewish wine, although it becomes non-kosher, nevertheless one is allowed to have benefit from it, that is to say, to sell it to a non-Jew.
Rabbi Kook on the other hand desperate to find any leniency possible to help the economy and agriculture, in his days, during the Shmitta year, survive, claimed that we can rely on the minority view of the Bach that the prohibition "that they shall not dwell in your land" might not apply to Yishmaelites, together with the viewpoint, that the prohibition "lo tichanem" doesn't apply when the Jews get a benefit out of the deal, in order to temporarily sell Yishmaelites, Jewish land during the Shmitta year, in order to uproot the restrictions of the Shmitta year.
Other rabbis, such as Rabbi Herzog took Rabbi Kook, one step further and started to say it was Okay to sell Yishmaelites, Jewish Land in General, even on an individual basis and even not for the purpose of uprooting Shmitta year restrictions.
Now the truth is that Rabbi Kook was relying on a censored version of the Bach. The real uncensored version of the Bach holds the exact opposite. Namely, the prohibition of  "lo tichanem" does apply to Yishmaelites.
But even leaving that issue aside, Rabbi Kook thought for Shmitta purposes to make a distinction between Gentiles that believe in idols or in a Trinity and Gentiles who are monotheists, like Moslems. But if we can show that the Yishmaelites are practicing Markolis worship, then this might sabotage, the whole premise that Yishmaelites are any better than Baal worshipers or J-man worshipers.

[muman613]

I believe it was RaMBaM who first decided that Yishmaelites were monotheists. I learned this when I was looking into whether it was prohibited for a Jew to enter a church (because where I live they make us vote in churches). In that discussion I learned that we are permitted to enter mosques but not permitted to enter churches where imagery is displayed (crosses, pictures of their messiah, etc.).

It may have been because Rambam lived in a muslim country that he found a lenient (non-offensive) decision regarding the muslims.

Also, while I am no student or professor of islam, I believe I heard it said that the reason the muslims throw rocks at the kaabah is because they believe they are stoning the HaSotan. I also don't know technically whether this falls under the category of avodah zarah being worshiped in the manner it is supposed to be worshiped. If their belief concerns stoning Samech-Mem does that constitute idol worship?

[muman613]

http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5772/bo.html?print=1

Visiting a Church or a Mosque

Question: Is it permitted to visit or tour a church or a mosque?

Discussion: It is clearly prohibited to enter a house of avodah zarah. The Mishnah[1] prohibits one from even entering a city in which avodah zarah is present. Since it is impossible for us, who live in exile, to adhere to this prohibition, we are considered anusim—under duress—in this regard. Entering an actual house of avodah zarah, however, is clearly prohibited[2].

What remains to be clarified, however, is whether or not a church or a mosque is a house of avodah zarah. The poskim are not uniform in their classification of Christians as idol-worshipers. Although the Rambam rules unequivocally that Christians are idol-worshipers[3], other Rishonim[4] are more tentative. Their view is based on the assumption that non-Jews are considered idol-worshipers only if they totally reject the existence of G-d. Christianity, however, combines the belief in G-d with other idolatrous and alien beliefs. Such a theology is called avodah zarah b’shituf (in combination). Some poskim rule that avodah zarah b’shituf is not considered full-fledged avodah zarah[5], while others maintain that it is[6].

Moreover, there is a view[7] that gentiles nowadays cannot be considered idol-worshipers since they are merely following in the tradition of their parents (without actually worshipping idols).

Practically speaking, however, the vast majority of the poskim agree that Christianity is considered avodah zarah and a Jew is forbidden to enter a church[8]. The following reasons are offered:

* Most poskim consider Christianity to be avodah zarah[9].

* Even if avodah zarah b'shituf is permitted, it is only permitted for a non-Jew. For a Jew, however, there is no difference between avodah zarah and avodah zarah b'shituf[10]. For him, therefore, a church is considered a house of avodah zarah.

* The view of the Ran (Sanhedrin 61b) is that the belief in any religion except Judaism constitutes avodah zarah. He says the following: “...even the Christian saints, and even the...leader of the Ishmaelites, even though their followers do not consider them gods, nevertheless, since they bow to them to acknowledge that they are human incarnation of their divinities, they all have the halachic status of avodah zarah...”

* Even if present-day gentiles do not worship idols, nevertheless their churches are considered houses of idol worship, since all the services conducted therein are performed in the name of avodah zarah[11].

Regarding Islam, however, most poskim follow the opinion of the Rambam[12] that it is not considered avodah zarah[13]. Hence they do not expressly forbid entering a mosque[14]. Other poskim forbid entering a mosque as well[15]. All agree that unless there is a compelling reason to do so, mosques are off limits for any G-d-fearing Jew.

It goes without saying that the houses of worship of all other heathen religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. are considered avodah zarah and are off-limits at all times.

Question: Is one allowed to cut through the parking lot of a church?

Discussion: While church services are being held, it is clearly forbidden to enter the church’s parking lot because it may seem to a bystander that one is entering the parking lot in order to enter the church.

When church services are not being held, it is permitted to cut through the church’s parking lot. Although the poskim refer to a middas chasidus (an act of piety) not to enter a courtyard of a church, nevertheless, if the shortest route available is through the church's parking lot, it is permitted and the middas chasidus does not apply[16].



1. Avodah Zarah 11b.

2. Rambam, Peirush ha-Mishnayos, Avodah Zarah 1:3. Shach, Y.D. 149:1. See also Y.D. 150:1.

3. Hilchos Ma’achalos Asuros 11:7. The line in the Rambam referring to Christians was censored. It appears in its entirety, however, in the Frankel edition of the Rambam. See also Rambam Hilchos Avodah Zarah 9:4, and Hilchos Teshuvah 3:8 for a similar ruling.

4. Tosafos, Sanhedrin 63b in the name of Rabbeinu Tam; Meiri, Avodah Zarah 2a and 6b.

5. Rama, O.C. 156 according to Pischei Teshuvah, Y.D. 147:2; Mor u'Ketziah 224; Sho’el u’Meishiv, Tanina 1:51; Seder Mishnah, Yesodei ha-Torah 1:7.

6. Noda b'Yehudah, Tanina, Y.D. 148; Sha'ar Efrayim 24, quoting the Chelkas Mechokek; Peri Megadim, Y.D. 65:45; Teshuvos Chasam Sofer, O.C. 84. See Mishnah Berurah 304:4.

7. See Shulchan Aruch, Y.D. 148:12 and Teshuvos Yehudah Ya’aleh, Y.D. 170.

8. Teshuvos Peri ha-Sadeh 2:4; Igros Moshe, Y.D. 3:129-6.

9. Minchas Elazar 1:53-3; Yechaveh Da'as 4:45. See entire list in Yayin Malchus, pgs. 234-237

10. Binyan Tziyon 1:63.

11. Darchei Teshuvah 150:2; Tzitz Eliezer 14:91, quoting Rav C. Palagi.

12. Hilchos Ma’achalos Assuros 11:7.

13. Y.D. 124:6 and Taz 4 and Shach 12. See Ben Ish Chai, Parashas Balak.

14. See Avnei Yashfei 1:153 who quotes Rav Y.S. Elyashiv as ruling that it is not prohibited to enter a mosque.

15. Tzitz Eliezer 14:91; 18:47, based on the previously-mentioned view of the Ran. See also Meiri, Avodah Zarah 57a who quotes Chachmei Sefarad as ruling that Islam is avodah zarah.

16. Entire paragraph based on Rama, Y.D. 149:2. See also Igros Moshe, Y.D. 3:129-6.

[muman613]

I was correct about their belief in stoning the Samech-Mem... But from my perspective it smacks of Avodah Zarah...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_the_Devil

Stoning of the Devil or stoning of the jamarāt (Arabic: رمي الجمرات‎) is part of the annual Islamic Hajj pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia. Muslim pilgrims fling pebbles at three walls, called jamarāt, in the city of Mina just east of Mecca. It is one of a series of ritual acts that must be performed in the Hajj.

The stoning is performed on the day of Eid al-Adha, and two or three days after. After the stoning is completed on the day of Eid, every pilgrim must cut or shave their hair.

On the 10th day of Dhu al-Hijjah (Eid al-Adha), pilgrims must strike the large jamrah only with seven pebbles. On each of the following two days, they must hit each of the three walls with seven pebbles, going in order from east to west. Thus at least 49 pebbles are needed for the ritual, more if some throws miss. Some pilgrims stay at Mina for an additional day, in which case they must again stone each wall seven times.

The pebbles used in the stoning are traditionally gathered at Muzdalifah, a plain southeast of Mina, on the night before the first throwing, but can also be collected at Mina.

[edu]

The Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin 64a raises the issue, what happens if a person does the act of throwing a stone at Markolis, but his intention at throwing the stone was to express his contempt for the idol or to make it appear less beautiful.
The Talmud rules that even in this situation the person throwing the stone at Markolis is liable.
Tosafot Yom Tov to the Mishna 6 of chapter 7 of Sanhedrin brings down two different viewpoints to what extent would the Jew who is throwing the stone at Markolis be liable.
He says that Rabbi Ovadia of Bartenura and Rambam hold the Jew would be liable to a sin offering but not the death penalty because we consider his actions to stem from a mistake and the person didn't mean to intentionally worship idols. However, he brings also the conflicting view of Rashi and Ramach, that contend that if the Jew was properly warned that throwing the stone (even with the intention of causing disgrace) to Markolis was an act of idol worship and afterwards  he nevertheless disregarded the warning, thinking it was meaningless because he wanted to disgrace the idol, in such a case there would be a death penalty.
I brought this issue up to show that as long as the idol has not been properly nullified as an idol, even Rambam and all the more so Rashi hold that there is some sin involved in performing the act of throwing a stone at Markolis, even if the person doesn't have a Markolis ideology.

[kyel]

I believe it was RaMBaM who first decided that Yishmaelites were monotheists. I learned this when I was looking into whether it was prohibited for a Jew to enter a church (because where I live they make us vote in churches). In that discussion I learned that we are permitted to enter mosques but not permitted to enter churches where imagery is displayed (crosses, pictures of their messiah, etc.).

It may have been because Rambam lived in a muslim country that he found a lenient (non-offensive) decision regarding the muslims.

Also, while I am no student or professor of islam, I believe I heard it said that the reason the muslims throw rocks at the kaabah is because they believe they are stoning the HaSotan. I also don't know technically whether this falls under the category of avodah zarah being worshiped in the manner it is supposed to be worshiped. If their belief concerns stoning Samech-Mem does that constitute idol worship?

You also have to consider that Rambam did not have the historical sources we have now about Muhammad's life and relatives that show Islam is 'polytheism' painted with monotheism in their incredibly split personality character in the Qur'an. I have wondered if righteous Muslims are able to 'connect' with Gd and to what extent, or to what characteristics they rightly ascribe to him...

[edu]

Bli Neder, that is to say without making a vow, I plan to discuss some time in the future about Rambam's attitude towards Islam.
Since Rambam's view has been interpreted in several ways, at the outset as an anchor, or as a contrast, I wish to bring up the opinion of Rabbeinu Nissim (the RAN) to Sanhedrin to 61b
Here is the original Hebrew:
ולמדנו מכאן שהקדשים של כותים
וגם המשוגע של הישמעאלי׳ אע״פ שאין טועין
אחריהם לעשותן אלהות הואיל ומשתחוים
לפניהם השתחואה של אלהו׳ דין ע״א יש להן
לכל דבר אסור של ע״א שלא בהדור לבד הם
משתחוים פניהם שאין הדור למתים אלא כענין
עבודה של אלהות היא עבודתן
Translation: "And we deduce from here that also the holy things of the Samaritans and the maniac of the Yishmaelites even though they do not make a mistake about them (their holy things) to make them gods nevertheless since they bow down before them a bowing of service to a god, they have a law of idolatry to them for every prohibited thing of idolatry. For they do not do it solely to honor when they bow down their faces, for their is no honoring for the dead, rather their service is as a matter of worshiping a god".
Rabbeinu Nissim's opinion should not be dismissed so lightly because Rabbi Min Hahar and Tzitz Eliezer actually bring this down as Jewish Law in Tzitz Eliezer Vol. 14, siman 91, where they give a mosque the status of a house of an idolatry based on Rabbeinu Nissim's opinion quoted above.
I will clearly admit at this point in time, that there are important rabbis in our generation who do not follow Rabbeinu Nissim's opinion.

[edu]

In one of Rambam’s responsa letters he deals with an argument that broke out between Ovadia, who converted from Islam to Judaism, (who also appears to have been quite knowledgeable in Torah law) and his Rabbi concerning Yishmaelites who practice Islam.
Ovadia held that Muslims are not idol worshipers while his Rabbi insulted Ovadia over his viewpoint and claimed that they are, because they throw stones to Markolis.
Rambam sided with Ovadia the convert.
 Rambam admitted that Muslims incorporated within their worship, pagan practices of throwing stones at Markolis, as well as pagan practices associated with the worship of the idols, Peor (mentioned in Bamidbar/Numbers 25:18) and Kemosh (mentioned in Bamidbar/Numbers 21:29).
But Rambam’s contention is that because the Muslims have monotheistic intentions when they do these things or bow in their houses of worship, this is a reason to exempt them from the severe sin of idolatry. He adds that the foolishness and the stupidity of the Yishmaelites are in other areas, but that he could not put it in writing because the wicked of Israel might inform on him {to the Muslims} regarding what he wrote.
He then ends his letter stressing how much we have to love the convert and how it was very wrong for Ovadia’s rabbi to insult Ovadia and he demanded that Ovadia’s rabbi should apologize.

[edu]

The following is the Soncino Translation to Tractate Avoda Zara 54b (and a little bit of 55a)

A philosopher asked R. Gamaliel, ‘It is written in your Torah, For the Lord thy God is a devouring
fire, a jealous God.24 Why, however, is He so jealous of its worshippers rather than of the idol
itself?’ He replied, ‘I will give you a parable: To what is the matter like? To a human king who had a
son, and this son reared a dog to which he attached his father's name, so that whenever he took an
oath he exclaimed, "By the life of this dog, my father!" When the king hears of it, with whom is he
angry — his son or the dog? Surely he is angry with his son!’ [The philosopher] said to him, ‘You
call the idol a dog; but there is some reality in it.’ [The Rabbi asked], ‘What is your proof?’ He
replied, ‘Once a fire broke out in our city, and the whole town was burnt with the exception of a
certain idolatrous shrine!’ He said to him, ‘I will give you a parable: To what is the matter like? To a
human king against whom one of his provinces rebelled. If he goes to war against it, does he fight
with the living or the dead? Surely he wages war with the living!’25 [The philosopher] said to him,
‘You call the idol a dog and you call it a dead thing. In that case, let Him destroy it from the world!’
He replied, ‘If it was something unnecessary to the world that was worshipped, He would abolish it;
but people worship the sun and moon, stars and planets, brooks and valleys. Should He destroy His
universe on account of fools! And thus it states, Am I utterly to consume all things from off the face of the ground, saith the Lord; am I to consume
man and beast; am I to consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, even the
stumbling-blocks of the wicked!1 — i.e., because the wicked stumble over these things is He to
destroy them from the world? Do they not worship the human being; so am I to cut off man from off
the face of the ground!’2

Footnotes
(24) Deut. IV, 24.
(25) The idol is a dead thing, so God does not wage war with it.
(1) Zeph. I, 2 f. The Talmud requires this translation. E.V., I will utterly consume etc.
(2) Ibid.
According to the parable used by R. Gamliel, of the son who says "By the life of this dog, my father!"
what is more annoying to the king, a simple dog raised by the son which the son calls "my father" or a fictional character, who is accepted by the false prophet of an enemy nation as the one and only king, which the son calls "my father"?

[edu]

Rambam in his response to Ovadia the convert (siman 488) provides several different monotheistic excuses that Muslim in his days used to justify throwing stones at Markolis in Mecca.
Among them he says, some of the clever Muslims say, "we know it was an idol but we are throwing stones at it as a sign of disgrace".
Although Rambam seems to accept this argument as a reason to exempt Muslims from idolatry according to Rashi and Ramach as I brought earlier in this discussion, this is not a valid reason to exempt someone from the crime of idolatry.
I do, however, have to do further investigation, if there is a Markolis idol, but no one in the city believes in Markolis any more, would this be grounds even according to Rashi and Ramach to look differently upon a person who throws a rock at it, as a sign of disgrace.