THE RABBIS AND URBAN CULTURE 165be a priori futile, if not meaningless. What I argue, though, is that the rabbis’
misprision, whether they knewit or not, allowed them to liveand work in the
cities, the very places where they could most easily accumulate wealth, social
ties,andinfluence.Theirpresenceinthecities,andtheirinterestinestablish-
ing ties with the local population, may have been a factor in keeping alive a
senseofseparatenessamongsomeoftheJewsinhighimperialnorthernPales-
tine.Furthermore,therabbis’institutionalaspirations,whichprovidedforthe
Jews a clear-cut, if not at first terribly attractive, alternative framework within
which to live their lives and acquire influence, were an important way in
which the Jewish cities differed fro mthose of their neighbors.
The Rabbis on Idolatry^8
The tractate concerned withavodah zarahnever explicitly prohibits it or pre-
scribes a punishment for its practice. The concerns of the Mishnaic tractate
are in fact at several logical removes from the mere prohibition of idol wor-
ship. This is the topic of M. Sanhedrin 7:6—a mishnah worth quoting, since
it constitutes the foundation of the rabbis’ approach to the issue.
“One [i.e., a Jew] who engages in idolatry” [is to be stoned—quoting Mishnah
4]—whether he worships [the idol in its normal way], or sacrifices, or burns in-
cense, or offers a libation, or bows, or accepts it as a god, saying, “you are my
god.” But if he hugs it, or kisses it, or cleans it, or washes around it, or washes it,
or anoints it, or dresses it, or shods it, he violates a negative commandment [and
so is merely liable to be flogged]. If he takes a vow or swears in its name, he
violates a negative commandment. If he exposes (po’er) himself to Ba’al Pe’or—
this is his [normal form of] worship; if he throws a stone at Merkulis [a dolmen
sacred to Hermes-Mercury]—this is his worship.Characteristically,theMishnahrequiresactionofitsidolaters,especiallycult-
relatedaction.TheMishnaharrangesthesepunishableactionshierarchically.
Most severe is the prohibition of what we may call first-order worship—wor-
shiping a god either as he is normally worshiped by his adherents or with
forms of sacrificial worship that may not in fact be customarily used for the
particulargodbutareunambiguouslyculticacts,eitherbecausetheyarehow
(^8) SeeTDNTs.v., and also the comments of G. Stroumsa, “Tertullian and the Limits of Toler-
ance,” Stanton and Stroumsa, eds.,Tolerance, pp. 173–84. The Greek word is found only in
Christian sources, as a katachresis for paganism, though it has a precise Jewish parallel in the
rabbinic’avodat ’elilim(idol worship); I use it as a functional equivalent of the nonkatachrestic
term’avodah zarah. Hadas-Lebel, “Le paganisme,” is a fulldiscussion of the specific pagan prac-
tices mentioned in Avodah Zarah; see also the analyses of the tractate in G. Blidstein, “Rabbinic
Legislation on Idolatry: Tractate Abodah Zarah Chapter I,” (Ph.D. diss., Yeshiva University,
1968); and in Hayes.