Avodah Zarah 13
Our Gemara discusses a particular procedure (perhaps hamstringing) that disables an animal. Though it causes the animal suffering, when there is a constructive purpose it is permitted. The Gemara brings a proof text from Yehoshua (11:6), where G-d commands him to disable the enemy horses in this fashion (see also Tosafos ibid.).
The Ralbag on this verse makes a powerful point. G-d gave Yehoshua this specific directive to run counter to the instinct of self-preservation. The captured horses ought to have been repurposed into a Jewish cavalry, thereby increasing the army’s might and effectiveness. Yet in this particular era of miraculous redemption, G-d wanted an emphasis on recognizing that these military victories were coming from Divine providence and not military might.
In the ancient world, the horse was a powerful commodity and vital part of a strong militia. But as the verses in Tehillim (33:16-17) state:
Kings are not delivered by a large force; warriors are not saved by great strength. Horses are a false hope for deliverance; for all their great power, they provide no escape.
This was a temporary command to Yehoshua, and ordinarily, outright miracles do not occur and military might and strategy are a necessary part of hishtadlus. Nevertheless, the impression and lesson are meant to last. Despite whatever great weapons we have, it is G-d’s providence that wins or loses for us.
The recent and remarkable successes of the Israeli and American armed forces against the maniacal and destructive forces of the Iranian regime should be seen in this light.
On June 21, 2025, President Trump stated:
And I want to just thank everybody. And, in particular, G-d. I want to just say, we love you, G-d, and we love our great military. Protect them. G-d bless the Middle East. G-d bless Israel and G-d bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Netanyahu concluded his address to the Jewish people with the following statement:
The nation rose as a lion. Am Yisrael Chai. And with G-d’s help, the eternal people will ensure the eternity of Israel.
One might say this is cultural and political theater for an Israeli politician. However, correspondent Herb Keinon for The Jerusalem Post (June 23, 2025) makes a compelling observation:
In a striking departure from his usual style, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opened his post-U.S. attack press conference on Sunday evening by reciting Judaism’s cardinal declaration of faith: Shema Yisrael – “Hear O Israel, the L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is One.”
Like many Israeli leaders, Netanyahu often peppers his speeches with biblical verses, usually used as cultural or historical touchstones rather than as expressions of personal religiosity. Keinon points out that Netanyahu’s use of the Shema prayer is less typical and perhaps indicative of a deeper religious arousal. In Netanyahu’s own words:
There are things that look like miracles, but we should not rely on a miracle. The American Evangelicals who help us a lot say: “G-d helps those who help themselves.” In fateful moments, you are filled with questions of faith. In the end, either you have the faith or you don’t. Yes, that faith beats inside of me. The sense of shlichus (mission) beats within me.
We are most fortunate to have leaders who are not afraid to thank G-d publicly for these miracles.
Idolatry 401: Avraham’s Advanced Degrees
Avodah Zarah 14
Our Gemara on amud beis tells us that our forefather, Avraham, was well-versed in 400 chapters of idolatry.
What does this mean? A simple reading is that in his quest to find the true religion and G-d, he studied the various religions of his time. (The number 400 in Hebrew often means a large number, such as Esav’s 400 men (Bereishis 33:1), adding 400 benches to the study hall (Berachos 28a), 400 casks of wine (Berachos 5b), and more.)
The Midrash (Koheles Rabbah 3:11) says that Yisro, prior to his recognizing G-d, did not leave any deity that he did not worship. We can presume that this was part of his process as a seeker until he found the true faith. Bereishis Rabbah (39:1) describes Avraham going through a process of analysis and study to discover G-d, though doesn’t explicitly mention him worshipping idols. However, in (39:8) there is a reference to Avraham regretting having sinned with idolatry in his youth. These earlier efforts at religious devotion might have been Avraham’s 400 chapters of idolatry.
The Rambam writes that Avraham wrote religious tracts after recognizing G-d (Laws of Idolatry 1:3), and Migdal Oz (ibid.) says this is the source of the 400 chapters of idolatry. I find this explanation difficult, as it should be called 400 chapters of worship, not idolatry.
Sefer Daf al Daf, quoting Rav Chaim Stein, offers another idea. There are numerous teachings in Chazal that equate various actions and/or poor character traits with idolatry. For example:
- One who lives outside of Israel (Kesuvos 110b)
- One who prays Shemoneh Esrei while drunk (Berachos 31b)
- A liar or deceiver (Sanhedrin 92a)
- One who avoids giving charity (Bava Basra 10b)
- One who is arrogant (Sotah 4b)
- One who disrespects Chol HaMoed (Pesachim 118b)
- One who breaks vessels in anger (Shabbos 105b)
These were the additional 400 chapters of avodah zarah that Avraham was proficient in.
If this is the explanation, we must ask: What is the Gemara trying to emphasize? These are not lost esoteric teachings – Sages of all generations ought to know them. I believe the answer is that the Sages wanted to stress that although Avraham may not have had a formal Torah, he evolved in his thinking and behavior to an extremely developed moral code.
The aforementioned actions are considered idolatrous because, at their core, they stem from selfishness or arrogance. But could one mistreat others (G-d’s children!), steal, or be grandiose if one felt truly accountable to a single Creator – not a pantheon of local, fickle deities?
Therefore, Avraham’s monotheism sparked a change in behavior and morality that went beyond a particular religious practice or form of worship. It was a breakthrough in personal accountability and ethical consciousness.
Parsing Through The Problem: Running After Truth On Sand And Soil
Avodah Zarah 15
Our Gemara on amud beis relates a story where the great Amora Rabbah, based on arguments from his student Abaye, conceded that he had made a halachic error. Upon this realization, the Gemara reports that he ran after the party involved to try to correct his actions, but he could not catch up to them. The Gemara adds an interesting detail:
He ran three parsa’os after the buyer who had purchased his donkey to revoke the sale… and some say that he ran one parsa through sand. But he did not succeed in overtaking him.
A similar story is reported in Kesuvos (60b), where Abaye is corrected by his rebbe, Rav Yosef, and he too ran after people to correct his ruling:
He ran three parsa’os after his tenant farmer, and some say he ran one parsa through sand… but did not succeed in catching up.
Why this recurring, peculiar phrasing – three parsa’os on straight ground versus one parsa on sand? I believe the Talmud is offering a mild rebuke via a literary device. Let’s take a closer look:
We have a triangle of the same students, rabbis, and colleagues. Abaye was a student of both Rabbah and Rav Yosef. Rabbah and Rav Yosef were colleagues. There was a longstanding dispute among them about which approach in learning is superior: broad, surface-level knowledge (Sinai) or deep analytical reasoning (oker harim, uprooter of mountains) (Berachos 64a).
Rav Yosef was known as a Sinai, and Rabbah as one who uproots mountains. The Gemara there reports that officially, the Sages endorsed Rav Yosef’s approach as generally superior, though in practice, since as the Gemara relates that both seemed to share the position of Rosh Yeshiva in overlapping ways, it wasn’t so clear-cut.
Apparently, the debate is never fully resolved. The phrase of running three parsa’os on flat ground versus one parsa in slippery sand is a metaphor for these two styles. Broad knowledge covers more ground – like the three parsa’os – but is less deep. In contrast, the analytic path is slow and deliberate, like one difficult parsa through sand.
By noting mistakes by both Rabbah and Abaye, and their unsuccessful attempts to correct them, the Gemara might be hinting that these errors stemmed from failing to integrate both styles properly. Out of deference to these Sages, it is only hinted at subtly, without direct censure.
By paying close attention to the Sages’ language, we can appreciate their brilliance, humility, and ethical refinement.
