The Rambam's Shocking Teaching About Christianity and Islam - Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz

Main Ideas

1. The Dispute over Christianity and the Noahide Laws

Rabbi Breitowitz outlines a major disagreement between Rambam (Maimonides) and Rabbeinu Tam about whether Christianity counts as idolatry for non-Jews under the Seven Noahide Laws.

• Rambam’s view: Mainstream Christianity is idolatrous because of beliefs such as the Trinity and the embodiment of divinity. On this view, a Christian cannot qualify as a righteous Noahide who observes the Seven Laws and has a share in the World to Come. The lecturer notes that some later Christian groups, such as Unitarians, may not fit this description.
• Rabbeinu Tam’s view, as commonly understood: Christianity involves shituf—associating the one God with intermediaries. Although this belief is mistaken, Rabbeinu Tam is understood to hold that it is not idolatry prohibited to Noahides. A Christian could therefore, in principle, still be a righteous Noahide.
• A qualification: The meaning of Rabbeinu Tam’s ruling is itself disputed. The Noda BiYehuda offers a narrower reading, limiting it to the question of conducting business with Christians rather than declaring Christianity non-idolatrous in general. The broader interpretation is presented as the commonly accepted one and as the position reflected in the Rama.
• Why it matters: The dispute has practical implications in the lecturer’s account, including whether Christians may reside in the Land of Israel under the relevant halachic rules. He contrasts this with Hinduism, which he describes as clearly idolatrous, and Buddhism, whose status he says is more complicated.
• Not “different truths for different people”: The lecturer rejects the idea that Christianity could be true for Christians but false for Jews. Rather, he suggests that Noahides may be treated with greater tolerance for mistaken theology, while a sincere seeker of truth should move toward a clearer understanding of God.

2. Jewish Restrictions Remain Distinct

Even if Rabbeinu Tam’s view permits shituf for non-Jews, the lecturer emphasizes that this does not make the same belief permissible for Jews. He also says that Jewish restrictions concerning churches remain in force, including restrictions on entering or praising them. Attending a church ceremony raises an especially serious question.

He discusses the possible use of shalom malchus—maintaining good relations with the government—as a justification for a Jewish communal representative to attend an official event in a church. He notes that its application in modern circumstances is debated.

3. A Halachic Example: Natural-Hair Wigs

The lecture briefly turns to the dispute over wigs made from natural hair, particularly hair sourced from India.

• Some hair may have been cut as part of a Hindu religious practice and then sold by a temple.
• Some authorities therefore questioned whether the hair was an offering connected to idolatry, in which case benefiting from it might be prohibited.
• Others argued that the hair was donated or sold to the temple rather than offered as a sacrifice, so the prohibition might not apply.
• The lecturer stresses that the issue is unresolved in the discussion and advises asking a rabbi about a practical case.
• He also notes a separate debate about whether a wig that looks especially natural or attractive fulfills the purpose of covering a married woman’s hair. Practices vary among communities, and questions of modesty and wig style are distinct from the idolatry issue.

He uses this example to illustrate how a less commonly studied area of Jewish law can become practically relevant.

4. Rambam’s View of Christianity and Islam in History

Despite classifying Christianity as idolatry, Rambam also gives Christianity and Islam a historical role: they helped move societies away from ancient paganism and toward belief in one transcendent God associated with moral and ethical life. The lecturer presents this as a historical function, not as an endorsement of those religions’ theological claims.

5. Rahab and the Rules of War and Peace

The lecture then discusses Rahab, who sheltered the Israelite spies in Jericho and arranged a sign—a red thread—so her household would be spared.

The question is how she could be spared if the Torah commands the destruction of the seven Canaanite nations. The lecturer presents three explanations:

• Rambam: An offer of peace (keriat shalom) can still be made even after the campaign has begun. Rahab could be spared if she accepted the conditions of peace, including the Noahide Laws and Jewish sovereignty.
• Rashi: Peace could be offered before the Israelites crossed the Jordan. The spies had crossed, but the nation had not yet crossed, so Rahab’s case could still fall within that earlier opportunity for peace.
• Tosafot: Rahab was not herself from one of the seven Canaanite nations, even though she lived in Canaan. This explanation is especially needed to address the separate question of how Joshua could marry her: the lecturer says the prohibition on marrying members of the seven nations would still apply even after conversion.

The lecturer also suggests that the spies’ mission may mainly have been to learn that Jericho’s people were afraid, rather than to gather detailed military intelligence.

6. The Gibeonites and a Separate Problem

The Gibeonites, who were Canaanites, disguised themselves as travelers from a distant land and secured a peace treaty with Joshua and the Israelite leaders. When their deception was discovered, the Israelites honored the treaty; the Gibeonites were assigned service as woodcutters and water carriers. The lecture connects them with the Nethinim mentioned in later biblical and rabbinic sources.

Their case creates different questions under the two approaches:

• According to Rashi: Since the Israelites had crossed the Jordan and peace could no longer be offered to the seven nations, why were the Gibeonites spared?
• According to Rambam: Since peace could still be offered after crossing, why did the Gibeonites need to deceive Israel instead of openly accepting the terms of peace?

In response to an audience question, the lecturer suggests that the Gibeonites may simply not have known the relevant rules. Seeing other peoples defeated, they may have feared they would be killed if they revealed their identity.

Speakers and Sources Mentioned

• Main speaker: Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz.
• Audience members: Several unidentified audience members ask questions during the lecture.
• Rabbinic authorities and figures discussed: Rambam, Rabbeinu Tam, Rashi, Noda BiYehuda, the Rama, Tosafot, Rav Dovid Cohen of Flatbush, Rav Elyashiv, Rav Steinman, Rav Vosner, Rabbi Jacobovits, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, and the Bobover Rebbe.
• Texts and traditions referenced: Chazal; the Gemara, including discussions in Yevamot, Sotah, and Kiddushin; the books of Joshua, Ezra, and Nehemiah; and the Seven Noahide Laws.