Towards the end of this week’s parsha the pasuk says:ויאמר אליו משה כצאתי את העיר אפרש את כפי אל ה' הקולות יחדלון והברד לא יהיה עוד - “Moshe said to him (Pharaoh) when I leave the city and spread out my hands to Hashem, the noises will stop, and the hailstones will be no more” (Shemos 9:29). Rashi explains: “When I leave the city, however, in the city I can’t daven, as it is full of avodah zorah”. This also explains why every prophetic message that Moshe received, had to be received outside of Mitzrayim – it was improper for the Shechinah’s dignity to appear in such an unholy place.
The Pesikta Zutra (Va’eira 9:29) adds some interesting information: Moshe Rabbeinu had a special house, set aside for prophetic revelations outside the city. Therefore, every time he entreated Hashem, he did so in that special house.
The Sifsei Chachomim explains that at the end of the Plague of Hail, Moshe was forced to reveal this to Pharaoh in order to explain why the hail would continue falling and killing the Egyptians until he reached his designated place of prayer.
This concept also appears in the Chizkuni (Shemos 7:16) who explains why it was necessary for Moshe to go out and warn Pharaoh about the impending plagues at the Nile and not in the royal palace: since the palace was saturated with Egyptian idols, it would be improper to mention Hashem’s Name there in order to issue the warning. Hence, not only is davening to Hashem improper in the presence of idols – even reference to Him is inappropriate.
Davening in the Presence of Avodah Zorah
The Rema (Orach Chaim 94:9) rules that preferably one should not daven in the same room as an avodah zorah. Therefore, one who is residing in a room with avodah zorah icons should find a place to daven outside. Only if there is nowhere else to daven undisturbed can one daven in the same room with avodah zorah, and even then it must be in a avodah zorah free corner. The source for this halachah, writes the Mishnah Berurah (s.k. 29), is the aforementioned pasuk from this week’s parsha.
Davening in Cities with Churches
The Mishnah Berurah (s.k. 30) adds that today (in his time, in parts of Europe), whereas all our cities are filled with avodah zorah, if there is no option of davening in an avodah zorah free building, one may daven there while ensuring his corner is free of avodah zorah. The Rema and the Mishnah Berurah’s rulings referred to the cities in Europe which were Christian cities, and the avodah zorah they refer to is the crucifixes or statues of various religious figures.
This Mishnah Berurah indicates that if one has the option to daven inside a city with churches or outside, for example when traveling, it is preferable to daven outside a church-filled city or even on the road, if possible, than to daven inside the city.
Indeed, from the wording of the Medrash (12:5) we learn that while Moshe preferred to daven outside of Egypt, it wasn’t forbidden.
[It is said, that the reason the Chofetz Chaim chose to live in the little town of Radin was because it was so small it didn’t have a church. The Arizal is said to have resided in Tzefas for the same reason.]
Avodah Zorah Pendant
One of the most practical questions is regarding a person wearing a cross-pendant – does he receive the status of avodah zorah? This question may occur when one is flying on a plane, and he ends up sitting next to someone who is wearing a pendant, is he allowed to daven?
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 141:1) writes that a ceremonial cross used for worship is avodah zorah, but a pendant hanging from the neck only for decorative purposes, is not. The Shach writes (s.k. 6) that this is only true if we know that the pendant was never used for worship. If it was used, even once, either because it was removed and bowed to or kissed, or if another person bowed to it, it should be considered avodah zorah. The Har Tzvi (Orach Chaim I, 85:1) deduces from here, that a cross pendant hanging from a necklace is considered sofek [suspected] avodah zorah.
In any case, the Shulchan Aruch rules (Orach Chaim 113:8) that bowing down when davening to Hashem when facing a cross is forbidden due to mar’is ha’ayin – it might seem to the observer as if he is davening to the cross, even if one has specific intent to bow down to the Ribbono Shel Olam.
The Gemara recounts the story of Channa and her Seven Sons (Gittin 57b). After killing her first six sons, the king offered to spare the youngest’s life if he’d just bend down to lift up his ring so it would appear as if he was bowing to the idol. However, the youngest refused the offer and gave his life al kiddush Hashem.
Coins and Stamps
The Gemara (Avodah Zorah 50a) terms Rabbi Menachem ben Rabbi Simai “son of the pious ones”(בנן של קדושים) because he would not look at coins with an image of avodah zorah on. Tosfos in Shabbos (149a) understands that since Rabbi Menachem ben Rabbi Simai received a special title for what he did, it must be that a regular person is allowed to gaze at avodah zorah which was created for decorative purposes and it is only ceremonial pieces which are forbidden.
In light of the above, R’ Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah 1:69) rules that collecting or dealing in stamps with crosses is not forbidden because they are simply symbols, not objects of worship. However, not looking at them is praiseworthy. This is in addition to the fact that the cross is not seen as a deity but as a symbol of it. The source for forbidding a cross is to stay away from abomination, but it isn’t actual avodah zorah.
R’ Moshe Sternbuch in a Teshuvah (Teshuvos V’Hanagos 5:263) mentions that R’ Chaim Volozhin and the Steipler were very strict when it came to anything that even had a resemblance of avodah zorah, however, he concludes: אמנם רוב בית ישראל לא נהגו להזהר במקרה שיצא צורה זו באופן אקראי – “however, in most Jewish houses they aren’t accustomed to be particular about the above, if it’s just temporarily”. If we are medayak R’ Moshe Sternbuch words well, it seems that if one would keep the item for a long time than he would hold its forbidden, unlike R’ Moshe Feinstein.
This he’orah I saw brought down in a kuntros written by HaRav Boruch Schleider shlita. In this kuntros he also writes: אחר ומנהג :כתוב (ו"כ סימן סוף הגזול לולב פרק סוכה) ש"הרא ,הזו הכיעור מן להרחיק צריך כמה רואים שאנו מקורות שתי לציין וחשוב רוחות לשתי ומביא כשמוליך ואדרבה וערב שתי כעושה נראה רוחות ’לד ומביא שהמוליך לי נראה היה כך שהנהיג והראשון הוא חיצוני הכוונה לגבי ב"המ וגם ,לו יש קצוות ששה ומוריד ומעלה רוחות ’לד ומביא המוליך אבל לו יש קציות כי וערב כשתי נראה הוא ומוריד ומעלה חס דהוי דרום צפון מערב מזרח הראש יטה ולא דרום מערב צפון מזרח להיות צריכה והטיה: בכת ('כ ק"ס א"ס סימן) בשמע שלאחד ’בד .וערב שתי ושלום
Davening Towards an Avodah Zorah
In which direction should one daven if there is crucifix in his room in the direction of Yerusholayim? The Mishnah Berurah (94:30) quotes the Chayei Adam (23:5) that while usually one should daven in the direction of Eretz Yisroel (or in Eretz Yisroel – towards Yerusholayim), in this case one should daven in the opposite direction, while in his heart he should direct his thoughts to the Kodesh HaKadoshim [Holy of Holies] in Yerusholayim.
A Hospital Patient
The She’arim Hametzuynim B’halacha (18:8) discusses a patient in a hospital where there is a crucifix on the wall of every room. He quotes poskim who permit davening with his eyes shut in his bed, even facing the avodah zorah. In this situation one should not bow in shemonah esrei at all, and if possible, he should tilt his head to another direction.
Reform Temple
R’ Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 3:25) writes that renting or otherwise using part of a Reform or Conservative Temple for davening is forbidden because they do not believe in the fundamentals of Torah and they distort the Torah’s meaning, categorizing them as minim. He derives from the pasuk: “Distance your way from her and do not draw near to the entrance of her house” (Mishlei 5:8) that one must not associate with them. The Gemara (Avoda Zorah 17a) writes that entering this type of establishment is forbidden because one could appear as a regular patron. In addition, if both establishments are housed in the same building, those going to the regular shul may accidently hear the sermons given in the Reform Temple, which are on the most part, total kefirah.
R’ Moshe also adds, that in America there are many simple Jews who don’t know the difference between the different types of shuls, and they think that just like there is Ashkenaz and Sefard, there is Reform, Conservative and Orthodox and it doesn’t make such a difference where one goes. Moreover, being as they think there is not much difference, if they find that there is a minyan in the Reform or Conservative Temples and there is no minyan in the Orthodox, Shomer Torah U’Mitzvos Shul, then they will end up davening in a Temple.
For further elaboration on the topic see Tzitz Eliezer (introduction to Volume 5).
An orthodox community that fails to adhere to halachic guidelines, though, is judged differently. Even if they don’t have a mechitza [partition] or use a microphone on Shabbos, it is not because they don’t believe in the Torah but due to practically failing in these areas of Torah observance. Therefore, although it is certainly forbidden to daven there, renting a room from them for separate services is permitted on condition the other minyan is clearly indicated – either by written announcement or by a separate entrance.
As to informing them of their shortcomings – if they might take heed and change, it is certainly encouraged, but if they will not, it is preferable they continue sinning unknowingly than on purpose.
Bars and Nightclubs
R’ Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:31) was asked if it would be proper to rent a beer hall for davening on the Yomim Noraim. He answered that it would be improper to daven in a place where people behave immorally. Only if it had originally been a shul would such behavior not lower its sanctified status. Therefore, one may conduct davening in desecrated shuls in Europe, for example, but renting a bar for a few days of davening is not permissible. A building that was once a nightclub can be used for a shul if the change is permanent, and it will no longer revert back to its former use.
Making a Minyan in the Presence of Avodah Zorah
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 55:20) rules that one who sees a minyan, even from a distance, can join in and answer to kaddish and kedushah. This halachah was put in widespread use in recent years when people were quarantined at home and joined outdoor minyanim via this halachic mechanism. But it also has practical ramifications for our issue on hand: if avodah zorah or another unclean item stands between a man and his minyan, he cannot be counted as part of it even if he hears the chazon and sees all the members.
The poskim dispute as to what is considered a barrier that separates a minyan. The Magen Avraham (55:15) opines that only the avodah zorah can serve as a barrier, but an idol worshipper does not. However, many Achronim (Levush 55:20; Elyah Rabbah, 55:18; Pri Megodim Eshel Avraham 55:15; and others) are of the opinion that even an idol worshipper is a barrier. The Mishnah Berurah (55:65) follows this opinion.
Nevertheless, the Mishnah Berurah (55:62) notes that the Shulchan Aruch writes this halachah under the title of yesh omrim – a second opinion. This indicates that there those who differ on this halachah. Therefore, although it is preferable nothing should stand between one joining a minyan, bedieved he should answer amen and kedushah, but not borchu.
Priest’s Visit
The Har Tzvi (Orach Chaim 1:85) and the Shevet HaLevi (II, 59:3) expound on the prohibition to invite priests in full ceremonial regalia to visit shuls, especially during davening. Nevertheless, one must act wisely not to arouse undue animosity. The Har Tzvi adds, that in extenuating circumstances, if they entered on their own, one is not obligated to remove them.
The Nile River
The Chizkuni writes that Moshe Rabbeinu was commanded to warn Pharoah about the upcoming plagues early in the morning when he went to the Nile, not in the city or in his palace. The reason was in order to refrain from mentioning Hashem’s Name in an idol-saturated surrounding. Since the Egyptians worshipped the Nile River, why wasn’t mentioning Hashem’s Name there problematic? Moreover, Pharaoh himself was also regarded by the Egyptians as a deity?
In light of the above halachic discussion, it is clear that while inappropriate and clearly discouraged, mentioning Hashem’s Name in presence of avodah zorah is not forbidden. Therefore, when necessary, such as to fulfill a direct order from Hashem, Moshe was permitted to mention the Name of Hashem, the one who had sent him to deliver the warnings.
River or Mountain
Regarding the Nile River, which was (relatively) the cleanest place in Egypt in terms of avodah zorah, there is another reason for leniency. This is relevant even today for people who visit the Ganges River in India or Mount Olympus in Greece. In general, prominent mountains are favorite places for cults and religious worship, particularly when they are isolated as island mountains, mountains with snowcaps, or uninhabited high mountain ranges.
The Mishnah (Avodah Zorah 3:5) writes that anything that is part of the ground cannot become avodah zorah, and cannot become forbidden even if people worship it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 145:1) cites this as the reason that public rivers and springs don’t become forbidden. The Achronim are split regarding the meaning of this ruling – the Levush (1) understands this is because anything that is part of Earth cannot become avodah zorah. However, the Prisha (3) understands that it depends upon ownership – a single idol-worshipping person cannot render a public place forbidden due to its being an item of worship. However, one who worships his own private river or mountain – or, if all the residents of a country regard their river as a deity, it does have the status of avodah zorah and cannot be used.
In light of the above, apparently, the status of the Nile River depended upon the above dispute. Practically, today, despite the fact that most of the residents of India worship the Ganges River, there is room for leniency because the Shach (2) follows the Levush in his halachic ruling.
Further Leniency for Moshe Rabbeinu
The dispute described above regarding the possibility of a natural river becoming avodah zorah includes two possible intentions people have in worshipping it – either they see the river as representing higher powers; or they worship the actual waters that are presently passing in the waterway. If the Egyptians worshipped the spiritual powers that were linked to the Nile – the river itself did not become avodah zorah. And if they worshipped the actual waters – Moshe appeared to Pharaoh early in the morning before anyone had a chance to worship anything. The waters that had been worshipped on the day before had already passed in the river and spilled into the Mediterranean, and the new waters hadn’t yet been worshipped and become an avodah zorah.
