1952 —על אשרה, עבודה זרה, וחוקי הרמב"ם

B"H, [Month of Redemption]

Regarding your precise reading in your last letter—on Rambam, Laws of Avodah Zarah 6:9: “Because this was the way of idol worshippers to plant trees etc.,” that with Asherah there is no actual matter of idolatry—I do not agree with your understanding, for in this halachah the discussion is not about Asherah at all, only about a regular tree (rather, Rambam did not want to skip or shorten Scripture for a single word, so he also copied the word ‘Asherah.’ Furthermore—its planting is forbidden everywhere). But see in the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 48a) the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Tanna Kamma. Also see Moreh Nevuchim Part III ch.29 and ch.37.

As for what you wrote that Asherah is similar to a matzevah (pillar), which only afterwards became hated by G‑d, as opposed to in the days of the Avos—this requires further examination as to your source. And it is also a great novelty regarding matzevah itself, that something once meritorious becomes prosecutorial because of fools (see Avodah Zarah 54b). And we do not derive law from such a novelty. Especially since we do not find anywhere that the Avos planted trees for the sake of G‑d. Accordingly—that Asherah was always despised—it clarifies and sweetens why our Sages (Sotah 10a) struggled to interpret “He planted an eshel...and he called there...” away from its simple meaning. See also Zohar I 49a.

What should be analyzed in Rambam there is his wording: “Even though he made it for beauty etc.” (a) What is the source for making such a distinction? (Or Sameach points to Mechilta: “I will make before Him a beautiful sanctuary.” Perhaps his intent is to answer this question—but it’s forced.) (b) If there is reason to distinguish—what is the source that there’s no practical difference, and even if made for beauty one receives lashes? One could say that if made for beauty—it becomes nullified to what it beautifies, like beautifying a sukkah (Sukkah 10a). Still, the law remains that one receives lashes, since this was precisely how idolaters did it—the tree was subordinate and nullified to their altar so people would gather there.

With this explanation another precision in Rambam becomes clear: (d) The words “so that...the people” seem superfluous—for what practical difference? According to what was said above it’s understood—from here we learn that even for beauty and adornment it’s forbidden. And more could be said.

(e) The matter that matzevah was beloved before Matan Torah and afterwards despised according to Chassidus—is explained in Ohr HaTorah by tzt"z at Parshas Vayetzei (198a).

Summary

This letter explores nuanced distinctions in halachic sources regarding Asherah and idolatry, emphasizing careful textual analysis and how attitudes toward certain practices evolved from our forefathers’ times through later Torah law.