Likkutei Sichos Vol. 30 – Vayishlach 2
1. The Rambam writes: "The impurity of idolatry is by rabbinic decree, and there is an allusion to it in the Torah: 'Remove the foreign gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments.' And there are four primary categories of impurity regarding it, etc., and the impurity of all of them is by rabbinic decree."
One must consider: What led the Rambam to bring a "hint in the Torah" for this rabbinic decree ("by their words") of the impurity of idolatry, which is not his usual practice (in most places, if not all) — he does not bring a hint or an asmachta for rabbinic decrees (even when there is an explicit hint in the words of our Sages)?
It is even more puzzling: This hint from the Torah for the impurity of idolatry, from the verse "Remove… and purify yourselves…", is not found in the Mishnah or Gemara, nor in the early Midrashim of our Sages that have reached us. On the other hand, it is explicit in the Mishnah: "From where do we know that idolatry imparts impurity… like a niddah? As it says, 'You shall cast them away like a menstruant woman.'" Similarly, they derived from the verse "You shall utterly detest it…" that it imparts impurity like a creeping thing, and it is also compared to a corpse, as it says, "And he cast its dust upon the graves of the common people" (and as the Gemara concludes, for what halachic purpose idolatry is compared to a creeping thing, to a niddah, and to a corpse) — and these derivations are merely asmakhtas, as the Gemara explicitly concludes that "the impurity of idolatry is rabbinic."
If so, why did the Rambam bring a "hint in the Torah" from a Midrash that is not commonly found, and not from the explicit derivations in the Mishnah and Gemara?
Furthermore: In the following halacha, the Rambam does indeed bring the derivation from "You shall utterly detest it" that idolatry imparts impurity like a creeping thing, and in the halacha after that — the derivation from "You shall cast them away like a menstruant woman" that it imparts impurity like a niddah. Based on this, it is even more puzzling: Why did the Rambam need to preface with a "hint in the Torah" from the verse "Remove…" and not suffice with the explicit derivations in the Talmud, which he brings in the following halachos?
2. The explanation may be as follows: The nature of the impurity of idolatry can be explained in two ways:
a) The decree of impurity applies to the object itself that was worshipped, and it comes as a continuation of the Torah prohibition of idolatry — just as the Torah forbade deriving benefit from an object that was worshipped, making it an object of prohibition, so too the Sages added and decreed that the status of impurity should apply to the object that was worshipped.
b) The decree of impurity is not connected to the Torah's prohibition of idolatry and is only for the sake of the person — in order to distance and separate a person from idolatry.
And even though the impurity of idolatry includes four primary categories of impurity that also render vessels impure, which would seem to prove that the decree of impurity is such that the status of impurity applies to the object itself that was worshipped (and not just to the person who touches the idolatry) — it can be said that this itself is only for the sake of distancing the person, for this stringency itself increases the separation of a person from it.
It can be said that this is the reason the Rambam writes (a) that the impurity of idolatry "has a hint in the Torah," and (b) that specifically this hint is brought from the verse "Remove the foreign gods…," and he does not suffice with the hint from "You shall utterly detest it" (or "You shall cast them away like a menstruant woman") which he brings later:
The difference between the derivations in the Talmud (that idolatry imparts impurity like a creeping thing or like a niddah, etc.) and the hint from the verse "Remove…" is as follows: In the above derivations, the emphasis is on the repulsiveness of the object of idolatry (that it is abominable like a creeping thing, or impure like a niddah), whereas in the verse "Remove the foreign gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments," the focus is on the act of removing the idolatry from among them. Therefore, the Rambam prefaces that the basis for the impurity of idolatry is the "hint in the Torah: 'Remove…,'" thereby teaching us that the essence of this impurity is (not because of the object of idolatry, but) for the sake of the person, to separate and distance him from it — "Remove the foreign gods…." Only in order that this distancing be complete did they decree that it should impart impurity like a creeping thing, like a niddah, etc.
That is to say: If the Rambam had not prefaced with this hint, then from the derivations brought in the later halachos it would seem that the impurity of idolatry is due to the object itself—the thing that is worshipped—which is repulsive like a creeping thing, etc. Therefore, he needed to preface that the "hint in the Torah" regarding the general content of the decree of impurity for idolatry is from the verse "Remove the foreign gods…," which emphasizes that its purpose is the removal of idolatry from the boundaries of Israel. From the other verses, we learn only the specific details of the laws of the impurity of idolatry (that it is compared to a creeping thing, a niddah, and a corpse).
3. We can explain the reason why the Rambam adopts the second approach mentioned above—that the content of the impurity of idolatry is only a decree to distance a person from idolatry (and not because of the object of idolatry itself, as is the case with the Torah prohibition of idolatry)—by first considering the following:
a) The prohibition of idolatry is different from other prohibitions of benefit. All prohibitions of the Torah are things that have a real existence, whereas idolatry has no substance. Even though the object that is worshipped does exist, nevertheless, the fact that this thing is considered an entity of idolatry is only the imagination of the idolater, who in his false imagination says, "You are my father, O tree, and to a stone, you gave birth to me." But in truth, it is "a lie… vanity, and there is no benefit in them"—they are nothing but mere wood and stone. This is not the case with other prohibitions, where the prohibition itself (not just the object that is prohibited) is something that has substance (according to Torah), such as an ox that is to be stoned, chametz on Pesach, and similarly with forbidden foods like neveilah and treifah, etc.—in all of these, their status as a prohibited entity comes from something that has real existence.
Therefore, we find that there is a unique law regarding idolatry: it is forbidden to do anything that gives it importance or grants it substance.
b) The status of a prohibition of benefit is not the same as that of impurity. A prohibition is only a negative matter, which nullifies the significance of the thing (so that it cannot be benefited from, to the point that it loses all value); whereas the status of "impurity" includes the idea that the evil and repulsiveness in the object of worship has substance to the extent that it can affect a person—so that one who touches it becomes impure, and because of this, he is forbidden to enter the Temple or eat sacred foods.
Therefore, the Rambam holds that the decree of impurity for idolatry is not because of the object of idolatry itself, for then it would appear that the prohibition of idolatry has some substance (that the object of worship possesses an inherent impurity that causes impurity in the person who touches it). Rather, the entire matter is only because of the person—the one who worships idolatry, as explained above.
4. We can say—at least by way of allusion—that from these words of the Rambam (who brings a "hint in the Torah" from this verse, "Remove…," regarding the impurity of idolatry), we can learn a general explanation about the concept of idolatry.
For behold, at first glance, there is room for the question: How is it possible that in the world of the Holy One, blessed be He, there should exist the phenomenon of idolatry, which is the denial of His unity? Similar to the question that was asked of the elders: "If He does not desire idolatry, why does He not abolish it?"
And although they answered, "Behold, they worship the sun and the moon and the stars and the constellations—should He destroy His world because of fools?" (and they also answered their claim, "Let Him destroy only that which the world does not need and leave that which the world does need"), nevertheless, the matter is still not fully resolved: How does G‑d allow for there to be even the thought in a person's mind that there is a reality of idolatry in the world, to the extent that there is a need to abolish it? (For it is obvious that if it were the Creator's will that there should not be a reality of idolatry in His world, it would not be possible for a person to even imagine worshipping idolatry.)
The answer to this is hinted at in what the Rambam writes, that the source for the law of the impurity of idolatry is in the verse "Remove the foreign gods…," meaning: The very possibility for the existence of idolatry in the world is only so that this very matter—that there is absolutely no place for the existence of idolatry—should come about (not as something natural, but) through the action of the Jewish people, who remove the foreign gods. For since "for the work of Your hands You yearn"—that G‑d desires that matters of holiness should come and be revealed through the service of the Jewish people—so too regarding faith in G‑d: His will is that the Jewish people (by their own power) should reveal this faith in the world. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world in such a way that the existence of idolatry is possible, as it is written, "and one who wishes to err, let him err," so that the Jewish people would be required to reveal the falsehood of idolatry and how it has no substance, and thereby abolish the matter of idolatry and reveal the true faith in the one G‑d.
5. It is well known what the Alter Rebbe writes in the Tanya, that every transgression contains, in a subtle way, the concept of idolatry.
For true faith in His unity is not (only) that there is no other G‑d besides Him, G‑d forbid, but that there is no other existence at all besides Him, for the true existence of every created being is only the "word of G‑d" that constantly gives it life and brings it into being from nothingness. Therefore, anyone who considers himself "a being and an entity unto himself" (because he does not feel that he has no existence apart from Him) is (subtly) involved in the concept of idolatry and "denial of His true unity."
It follows that the act of a transgression (any transgression), in which a person considers himself a being and an entity separate from Him, is (subtly) also a denial of His true unity (that there is nothing besides Him).
The same applies regarding the forbidden things themselves: since they provide the possibility for a person to commit a transgression—which is a denial of His true unity—it turns out that they are opposed to "His true unity."
From this it is understood that just as was explained above regarding the existence of idolatry in the literal sense—that in truth it has no substance or reality and is nothing but the imagination of the one who serves it, and furthermore, that the very purpose (that there can be such an imagination in the mind of the worshipper) is only so that there should be the action of the Jewish people to remove it, "Remove the foreign gods…"—so too (in a subtle sense) with all forbidden things: the fact that they are an object of prohibition, which gives a person the possibility to deny His true unity, is not an inherent matter in the object itself, but only for the sake of the service of the Jewish people, as will be explained.
6. This matter is understood according to what is explained in Tanya, that the possibility for the existence of a being and an entity separate from His unity is only due to the concealment of the Divine countenance, which covers and hides the Divine power within created beings (which constantly brings them into being from nothingness). However, this concealment exists only in relation to the created beings, for to them this concealment has reality, and it causes it to appear to them as if there is some existence apart from Him. But regarding the Holy One, blessed be He, nothing hides or conceals from Him, and nothing is separate from Him, and therefore "all believe that He alone is as He was before the world was created… without any change."
At first glance, this requires explanation: since the absolute truth is that nothing in the world has any existence apart from Him (and the fact that it does not appear so to our eyes is only due to the concealment that covers the truth)—why, then, do the laws of the Torah (which is the Torah of G‑d and a Torah of truth) give validity to the existence of those things as entities separate from His unity, to the extent that they become truly forbidden and impure, etc. (according to Torah)?
One explanation for this is: the fact that forbidden things have validity and existence according to Torah is only so that there should be the service of the Jewish people, to overcome them and reject them, etc. In the words of the Rambam (cited above)—"Remove the foreign gods…." That is: the object of prohibition in and of itself has no truth (and is only due to the concealment that covers the truth), and the "truth" that exists in the reality of the prohibition is only because it was given existence and validity (according to Torah) so that there should be the service of the Jewish people, for "for the work of Your hands You yearn" (as above), that they should reject the forbidden things and overcome them, as explained above.
7. From this we learn a great encouragement in a person's service in this world. Sometimes a person may come to a feeling of weakness in his service when he sees all the obstacles and hindrances in the world regarding matters of holiness, and that in order to overcome them he needs to wage a great battle, etc.—and from where will he have the strength to win this battle?
And this is the instruction: the entire existence of the opposing force is only due to the concealment that covers over the truth, that "there is nothing besides Him," and nothing in the world has any existence apart from Him, blessed be He. Therefore, if a person cleaves to G‑d until G‑d's true unity is revealed within him, then automatically the existence of the opposition is nullified—like darkness that is dispelled before light—for in truth, it has no existence at all, as explained above.
This is also explained in the interpretation of the verse, "When you go out to war against your enemies," which alludes to the battle with the evil inclination (which is called a person's "enemy")—and in a broader sense, it refers to the war against all the enemies of G‑d. A person must know (immediately upon going out to war) that in essence, he is "above (and beyond) your enemies," for only the Jewish people, who are attached to G‑d, have true existence, whereas "your enemies," who oppose holiness, have no real strength or true existence.
If so, why did G‑d make it so that there is an existence of "your enemies," who, to our eyes, seem to have strength and ability to oppose holiness? The answer is at the beginning of the verse, "When you go out to war"—the entire purpose is only so that the Jewish people should go out to war and actually bring forth and reveal their powers by nullifying the enemies of G‑d.
With this, the apparent contradiction at the end of the verse—"(When you go out to war…) and you take captives"—is clarified:
The meaning of "his captives" is that one takes from the enemy those things that were in his captivity. In our context, the side of unholiness ("your enemies") has no strength or existence of its own, G‑d forbid, except for what has fallen into its captivity from the realm of holiness.
But according to this, the end of the verse, "and you take his captives," is not understood: since this is "his captive"—your own property—why does it say "and you take captive"? The departure from the enemy's domain is not an act of captivity ("and you take captive"), but on the contrary, a return to its true place, within the realm of holiness. It should have said, "and you return his captive."
However, these are the two aforementioned opposites regarding the existence of the side of unholiness ("your enemies"): On the one hand, they have no existence of their own, only what is taken in "captivity" from the realm of holiness; yet at the same time, they are given strength according to Torah, for otherwise, there could not be the reality of the service of the Jewish people. [If they had no strength according to Torah, and all their opposition to holiness was mere illusion, there would be nothing novel in a person defeating the enemy.] This is the meaning of "and you take his captives": although it is speaking of "his captives," something that has no existence of its own except due to holiness, nevertheless, from the perspective of the Jewish people, there must be an act of "and you take captive," as if they are in the possession of the enemy, for only in this way is the novelty of the Jewish people emphasized—in that they defeat and subdue the enemy under the domain of holiness.
This is the entire existence of your enemies—not that they truly have existence, G‑d forbid, but solely so that the Jewish people will take what is theirs ("and you take his captives"), similar to Rashi's words regarding the Land of Israel: "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; by His will He gave it to them, and by His will He took it from them and gave it to us." That is, the giving to them was from the outset only in order to take it from them and give it to the Jewish people.
(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Shoftim, 5748)