Introduction:
The Rambam in chapter one of the Laws of Idolatry explains that essence of idolatry is to try to come close to God by means of a intermediate or a mediator. This would include people.
Later in chapter 2 he explains that a mediator can be anything from the highest heavens until anything composed of basic elements, or any created thing. People are created things so people can be mediators. Idols do not have to be physical objects. They can be even great and special human beings. Even a true tzadik. [Clearly the Gra saw this problem in his days when he signed the excommunication against Hasidim, that said not to sit within four yards of a hasid, or have any interaction in business or in any other way with them..]
In chapter 3 he says if one serves an idol from love or fear [i.e. he loves the beauty or is afraid the idol will hurt him] then he is liable only if he accepts the idol as a god with spiritual powers.
We don't see this condition elsewhere.
The Remach רמ''ך [Rav Moshe HaKohen] asked, "Why in throwing a stone at Markulit one is liable without accepting it as ones god?"
The Rivash [A Rishon on the Rambam] and the Beit Yoseph answer this in some way I did not have a chance to figure out.
My learning partner said the Rambam means he is liable a sin offering for doing idolatry by accident. He might not be referring to liability for the death penalty.
But I think what the Rambam is saying is in all cases. Because the condition of accepting as ones god is only when one is openly not using the idol as a mediator as in the case he serves it from love or fear. But in any other case, it is enough to serve the idol as a mediator in order to be liable.
הקדמה: בתחילת הלכות עבודה זרה הרמב''ם כתב שעיקר עבודה זרה היא לעבוד או לפאר אמצעי כדי להתקרב להבורא יתברך. וכן הוא כתב הפירוש המשנה פרק חלק. בפרק ג' הוא אומר שהעובד מאהבה או מיראה אינו חייב אלא אם כן הוא מקבלו עליו כאלוה. הרמ''ך שאל למה הוא חייב כשזורק אבן למרקוליס בלי לקבל עליו כאלוה? החברותא שלי תירץ שכוונת הרמב''ם היא שחייב חטאת בגלל עבודה זרה בשוגג. והוא לא כיוון שחייב סקילה. אני רוצה לומר שהתנאי לקבל עליו כאלוה הוא רק במצב של עובד מאהבה או מיראה. ובדרך כלל העובד רק בתור עמצאי חייב בגלל שהעובד לאמצעי הוא עיקר עבודה זרה
The Rambam in chapter one of the Laws of Idolatry explains that essence of idolatry is to try to come close to God by means of a intermediate or a mediator. This would include people.
Later in chapter 2 he explains that a mediator can be anything from the highest heavens until anything composed of basic elements, or any created thing. People are created things so people can be mediators. Idols do not have to be physical objects. They can be even great and special human beings. Even a true tzadik. [Clearly the Gra saw this problem in his days when he signed the excommunication against Hasidim, that said not to sit within four yards of a hasid, or have any interaction in business or in any other way with them..]
In chapter 3 he says if one serves an idol from love or fear [i.e. he loves the beauty or is afraid the idol will hurt him] then he is liable only if he accepts the idol as a god with spiritual powers.
We don't see this condition elsewhere.
The Remach רמ''ך [Rav Moshe HaKohen] asked, "Why in throwing a stone at Markulit one is liable without accepting it as ones god?"
The Rivash [A Rishon on the Rambam] and the Beit Yoseph answer this in some way I did not have a chance to figure out.
My learning partner said the Rambam means he is liable a sin offering for doing idolatry by accident. He might not be referring to liability for the death penalty.
But I think what the Rambam is saying is in all cases. Because the condition of accepting as ones god is only when one is openly not using the idol as a mediator as in the case he serves it from love or fear. But in any other case, it is enough to serve the idol as a mediator in order to be liable.
הקדמה: בתחילת הלכות עבודה זרה הרמב''ם כתב שעיקר עבודה זרה היא לעבוד או לפאר אמצעי כדי להתקרב להבורא יתברך. וכן הוא כתב הפירוש המשנה פרק חלק. בפרק ג' הוא אומר שהעובד מאהבה או מיראה אינו חייב אלא אם כן הוא מקבלו עליו כאלוה. הרמ''ך שאל למה הוא חייב כשזורק אבן למרקוליס בלי לקבל עליו כאלוה? החברותא שלי תירץ שכוונת הרמב''ם היא שחייב חטאת בגלל עבודה זרה בשוגג. והוא לא כיוון שחייב סקילה. אני רוצה לומר שהתנאי לקבל עליו כאלוה הוא רק במצב של עובד מאהבה או מיראה. ובדרך כלל העובד רק בתור עמצאי חייב בגלל שהעובד לאמצעי הוא עיקר עבודה זרה
